I personally like the Southbeach diet approach which limits sat. fats and simple carbs. Lean proteins and plant sources of fat are encouraged along with healthy veggies.


Dazed&confused


Well I have to say again that I'm not on or advocating a ZERO carb diet. Just a LOW carb diet and I don't count anything so I don't know what my macro-nutrient ratio might be.

As to the Southbeach diet its just a "Politicaly Correct" low carb diet with no more thought to it than that. The Weston A Price Foundation rates it as less desirable than a high carb / low fat diet because without fat or carbs you will become nutrient defficient.

http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/southbeachdiet.html

Regards, Anthony

I read that short story about Modano. His diet is similar to another diet I have read called "Turn up the Heat" (http://www.turnuptheheat.com) by Philip L. Goglia. He claims there are 3 different types of metabolisms as does Modano's food guy. Its an interesting program and Goglia is a former body builder, so he doesn't short change active people.

The upshot here is that none of this is the Adkins program. I agreed with Dr. Adkins on some points such as the increase in the amount of simple carbs in our diets, but I don't agree that his solution (all protein, all the time and no carbs) is a diet that maximizes sports performance. It might lose a person some weight, but won't give a person the fuels they need to live a active lifestyle.

I personally like the Southbeach diet approach which limits sat. fats and simple carbs. Lean proteins and plant sources of fat are encouraged along with healthy veggies.

BTW, when I mentioned emulating the healthy people's diet and exercise plan, I didn't mean MY diet and exercise plan. I'm not one of the healthy people passing you on your bike...

I gotta go, these emails are getting in the way of work and riding. Just bought a new Trek and I have to go and pick it up. I went in to look at shoes and ended up with a new bike.

Dazed&confused


you mean Atkins, right? I dont follow Atkins per se either, and at any rate, he recommends eating a lot of vegetables, so it's hardly "no carb." just a lot less carbs than a low fat diet.

I dont buy that 3 different metabolisms mumbo jumbo, I believe we all have basically the same metabolism, which is the same as it was 10,000 years ago.. still, some argue that in warmer climates, humans didnt have to rely on meat as much, they could just vist the handy salad bar all around them...I'm skeptical about that...

enjoy your new bike!

another successful athlete who low carbs... sort of...


http://newyorkmetro.com/health/features/15922/index.html

Here’s Johnny
Johnny Weir is the best male figure skater in the United States—and the most outrageous. This is the fitness routine that got him to the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin.



Johnny Weir could win Olympic figure-skating gold this week. He might get a medal for most quotable athlete, too. Nicknamed “Tinkerbell,” the 21-year-old from the Skating Club of New York is known for his Balenciaga-bag habit, his giant fur stoles, and his arch commentary—he recently described one of his costumes as “Care Bear on acid” and his attitude to travel as “princessy.” Weir does, however, have a serious side: the fitness routine that’s allowed him to overcome devastating knee and ankle injuries. Here’s his daily regimen.

The Workout

CARDIO
Ice time.
Five days a week, Weir hits his training rink in Delaware for 75 minutes in the morning and two hours and fifteen minutes in the afternoon, without breaks.
Kill drills.
While blasting Madonna—“I’m really loving ‘Sorry’ from her new CD,” he says—Weir speed-skates across the rink and attempts a triple jump at each end. He fits fifteen jumps into one minute; a typical performance has eight jumps in four. “I need music that gets me angry,” he says.

STRENGTH AND AGILITY
Standing roll-ups.
Off the ice, Weir is guided by his trainer, Carolanne Leone. To warm up, he tucks his chin to his chest and “rolls” his body forward, then back up, articulating every vertebra in his spine.
Bosu-ball push-ups.
Leone sets a weighted body bar across the flat bottom of this half-sphere, then Weir does ten to twenty push-ups. The ball’s instability makes balancing difficult.
Death squats.
Weir stands on the spherical side of the Bosu with a body ball pressed against the wall behind him and another between his knees. He holds a medicine ball outstretched and balances a rubber orange cone on his head, then does ten slow squats. This keeps his body strictly aligned and requires him to stabilize himself using his “core” (deep abdominal muscles). “With the new judging system,” says Weir, “the spins are very difficult. You need a strong core to pull yourself into crazy positions.”
Bosu-ball toss.
“It’s all about looking cute when you’re working out,” claims Weir. Wearing his customized Nikes—they say dirrty, in homage to his idol Christina Aguilera—Weir stands on top of the Bosu. He uses his core to stabilize himself as he tosses the medicine ball back and forth to Leone.

PILATES
The Reformer.
Leone puts Weir through a full routine on this apparatus with a moving “carriage.” Weir’s favorite part is the ab-killer “the hundreds.” Lying down with arms and legs extended into a V, he contracts his abs and waves his arms downward as he inhales and exhales for five counts, ten times.
Pilates plyometrics.
To work on the power bursts he needs for triple axels, Weir lays on the Reformer and pushes backward off a springboard. The key is to explode, then stay suspended as long as possible before landing softly. “I’m naturally very long-limbed and stretchy,” says Weir. “There are acrobatic things that we do just because it looks pretty, but it’s hard work.”
The chair lift.
Weir gets into a push-up position in front of the Wunda Chair, a Pilates apparatus; his toes press down on its tightly spring-loaded foot bar. Weir forces the bar down, then shifts his weight to his shoulders and core, which “lifts” the bar upward. Remaining stable requires immense effort.

DIET
Extra-low-cal.
“I don’t eat as much as an athlete should,” says Weir. “I just don’t like it.” Breakfast is coffee and vitamins. Lunch is fruit nectar. When he eats dinner, it’s steak and salad. Weir treats himself to Zone bars during competition and—once a year—angel-food cake with strawberries and heavy whipped cream. “I love black caviar, but it has to be from Astrakhan,” says Weir. “I drink Vitamin Water nonstop—I should have an IV.”

SLEEP
Six hours, minimum.
“I’m an insomniac,” says Weir. “Ambien is my best friend.”

Wow you found 1, now go tally up how many compete while on a diet that follows a 30% fat intake.

Personally, i dont want to emulate anyone nicknamed 'tinkerbell' but hey, go ahead there freddy.

another successful athlete who low carbs... sort of...


http://newyorkmetro.com/health/features/15922/index.html


And of course, Weir tanked at the Olympics and didn't even medal- lost his second place standing- probably to someone who ate carbs.

Koffee

And of course, Weir tanked at the Olympics and didn't even medal- lost his second place standing- probably to someone who ate carbs.

Koffee


just the fact that he was there puts him in the top 1% of athletes in his field.. but since he lost, of course, it was the lack of carbs, yes, for sure, it was the carbs, clearly...


(actually, sounds like the guy had a really poor diet, carbs or not)

EDIT: OOH OOH, 500 th post. 1 more and we have 500 replies![/B]:D :D



What do I win????

a good read on the health benefits of vegetarianism

Vegetarianism: What the Science Tells Us

By Sally Fallon and Mary G Enig, PhD

Health writers may denigrate animal foods with insouciance but, in fact, the scientific literature offers very little in the way of long-term studies on the value of a vegetarian diet. Dr. Russell Smith, a statistician, analyzed the existing studies on vegetariansim1 and discovered that while there have been ample investigations which show, quite unsurprisingly, that vegetarian diets significantly decrease blood cholesterol levels, studies evaluating the effects of vegetarian diets on mortalities continue to be few in number. In fact, Smith speculated that the available data from the many existing prospective studies are being shelved because they reveal no benefits of vegetarianism. For example, mortality statistics are strangely absent from the Tromso Heart Study in Norway which showed that vegetarians had slightly lower blood cholesterol levels than nonvegetarians.2

In a review of some 3,000 articles in the scientific literature, Smith found only two that compared mortality data for vegetarians and nonvegetarians. One was a 1978 study of Seventh Day Adventists (SDAs). Two very poor analyses of the data were published in 1984, one by H. A. Kahn and one by D. A. Snowden.3 The publication by Kahn rather arbitrarily threw out most of the data and considered only subjects who indicated very infrequent or very frequent consumption of the various foods. They then computed "odds ratios" which showed that mortality increased as meat or poultry consumption increased (but not for cheese, eggs, milk or fat attached to meat.)

When Smith analyzed total mortality rates from the study as a function of the frequencies of consuming cheese, meat, milk, eggs and fat attached to meat, he found that the total death rate decreased as the frequencies of consuming cheese, eggs, meat and milk increased. He called the Kahn publication "yet another example of negative results which are massaged and misinterpreted to support the politically correct assertions that vegetarians live longer lives."

The analysis by Snowden published mortality data for coronary heart disease (CHD), rather than total mortality data, for the 21-year SDA study. Since he did not eliminate the intermediate frequencies of consumption data on meat, but did so with eggs, cheese and milk, this represents further evidence that both Kahn and Snowden based their results on arbitrary, after-the-fact analysis and not on pre-planned analyses contingent on the design of their questionnaire. Snowden computed relative risk ratios and concluded that CHD mortality increased as meat consumption increased. However, the rates of increase were trivial at 0.04 percent and 0.01 percent respectively for males and females. Snowden, like Kahn, also found no relationship between frequency of consumption of eggs, cheese and milk and CHD mortality "risk."

Citing the SDA study, other writers have claimed that nonvegetarians have higher all-cause mortality rates than vegetarians4 and that, "There seems little doubt that SDA men at least experience less total heart disease than do others. . ."5 The overpowering motivation to show that a diet low in animal products protects against CHD (and other diseases) is no better exemplified than in the SDA study and its subsequent analysis. While Kahn and Snowden both used the term "substantial" to describe the effects of meat consumption on mortalities, it is more obvious that "trivial" is the appropriate descriptor. It is also interesting that throughout their analyses, they brushed aside their totally negative findings on foods which have much greater quantities of fat, saturated fat and cholesterol.

The second study was published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982.6 It was shown that annual CHD death rate among vegetarians was only 0.01 percent lower than that of nonvegetarians, yet the authors indicated that the difference was "substantial."

The table below presents the annual death rates for vegetarians and nonvegetarians which Smith derived from the raw data in the seven-year Burr and Sweetnam study. As can be seen, the "marked" difference between vegetarian and nonvegetarian men in Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD) was only .11 percent. The difference in all-cause death rate was in the opposite direction, a fact that Burr and Sweetnam failed to mention. Moreover, the IHD and all-cause death rates among females were actually slightly greater for heart disease and substantially greater for all causes in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians.

Annual Death Rates of
Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians

IHD
All-Cause
Male vegetarians .22% .93%
Male nonvegetarians .33% .88%
Female vegetarians .14% .86%
Female nonvegetarians .10% .54%

These results are absolutely not supportive of the proposition that vegetarianism protects against either heart disease or all-cause mortalities. In fact, they indicate that vegetarianism is more dangerous for women than for men.

The claim that vegetarians have lower rates of cancer compared to nonvegetarians has been squarely contradicted by a 1994 study comparing vegetarians with the general population.7 Researchers found that although vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists have the same or slightly lower cancer rates for some sites, for example 91 percent instead of 100 percent for breast cancer, the rates for numerous other cancers are much higher than the general US population standard, especially cancers of the reproductive tract. SDA females had more Hodgkins disease (131 percent), more brain cancer (118 percent), more malignant melanoma (171 percent), more uterine cancer (191 percent), more cervical cancer (180 percent) and more ovarian cancer (129 percent) on average.

About the Authors

Mary G. Enig, PhD is the author of Know Your Fats: The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils, and Cholesterol, Bethesda Press, May 2000. Order your copy here: www.enig.com/trans.html.

Sally Fallon is the author of Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats, and Eat Fat, Lose Fat (both with Mary G. Enig, PhD), as well as of numerous articles on the subject of diet and health. She is President of the Weston A. Price Foundation and founder of A Campaign for Real Milk. She is the mother of four healthy children raised on whole foods including butter, cream, eggs and meat.

References

1. Russell L Smith, Diet, Blood Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease: A Critical Review of the Literature, Vol 2, Vector Enterprises, November 1991. The author was a statistician who subjected the many studies on coronary heart disease to appropriate rigorous statistical analysis.
2. V Fonnebo, "The Tromso Heart Study: diet, religion and risk factor for coronary heart disease," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1988, 48:739
3. H A Kahn et al, "Association between reported diet and all-cause mortality," American Journal of Epidemiology, 1984, 119:775; D A Snowden et al, "Meat consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease," Preventive Medicine, 1984, 13:490
4. J T Dwyer, "Health aspects of vegetarian diets," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1988, 48:712
5. G E Fraser, "Determinants of ischemic heart disease in Seventh-Day Adventists: a review," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1988, 48:833
6. M L Burr and P M Sweetnam, "Vegetarianism, dietary fiber and mortality," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1982, 36:873
7. P F Mills, et al, "Cancer incidence among California Seventh-Day Adventists, 1976-1982," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1994, Vol 59 (Supplement), Pages 1136S-1142S.

EDIT: OOH OOH, 500 th post. 1 more and we have 500 replies!

Do I get a prize? :)


What do I win????

AWHH, just the pleasure of reading through 500 posts of this robust and enlightening discussion :D :D

Regards, Anthony

Low carb rubbish. I live on bread, potatoes, pasta, Earth Balance, olive oil and vegetables and some legumes (chickpeas, mainly). Sometimes I'll have the first 5 in the same meal.

I have 9% body fat. Wanna lose weight? There's only ONE diet that works reliably: put down the fork. And ride your bike more.

Just sayin. Don't forget to drink lots.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a111/barnalicious/highcarb.jpg

I have 9% body fat. Wanna lose weight? There's only ONE diet that works reliably: put down the fork. And ride your bike more.Funny how the ones pushing low-carb are typically the ones who have problems with their weight. Personally I think a good diet-plan would be to eat everything with chopsticks. With rice, you might actually burn off more calories chasing the darn things around your plate than you'd get from eating them... :)

Funny how the ones pushing low-carb are typically the ones who have problems with their weight. Personally I think a good diet-plan would be to eat everything with chopsticks. With rice, you might actually burn off more calories chasing the darn things around your plate than you'd get from eating them... :)

Actually its fairly logical. I'm a supporter of the concept of Metabolic Type. Metabolic Type simplistically says that some of us are genetically suited to consuming mostly carbohydrates and some of us are genetically suited to consuming mostly fat/protein. Since the mainstream dietary guidelines push carbohydrates then carbohydrate types do well with mainstream advice. Fat/protein types DON'T do well on high carb diets and put on weight. Changing to a high fat/protein diet corrects the problem and they lose weight.

Regards, Anthony

...Just ask any cardiologist who they're giving bypass and angioplasties to. Hint: Its not lifetime runners, cyclists, or vegetarians.

and later, snarkily:

Don't know any practicing cardiologists, eh?



this is from something called "journal watch cardiology"

http://cardiology.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2004/709/1

Time to Take Low-Carb Diets Seriously?
In two randomized trials, researchers compared low-carbohydrate diets with low-fat diets to assess effects on cholesterol levels and weight loss.

In a 24-week study, 120 overweight, hyperlipidemic adults (mean BMI, 34) were randomized to eat a low-carbohydrate diet (starting at <20 g/day of carbs, plus nutritional supplements) or a low-fat diet (<30% of daily energy from fat, <300 mg of daily cholesterol, and intake of 500-1000 kcal/day less than usual). Both groups received exercise recommendations and support at group meetings. The retention rate was significantly higher in the low-carb group than in the low-fat group (76% vs. 57%). By 24 weeks, low-carb dieters had fared significantly better than low-fat dieters in mean weight loss (–12.0 kg vs. –6.5 kg), triglyceride change (–74 mg/dL vs. –28 mg/dL), and HDL change (+5.5 mg/dL vs. –1.6 mg/dL); LDL changes were similar in the two groups.

In another study (a 1-year follow-up of previously reported 6-month results; Journal Watch Cardiology Aug 8 2003), 132 severely obese adults (mean BMI, 43; about half with hyperlipidemia, about 40% with diabetes) were randomized to eat a low-carb diet (≤30 g/day of carbs) or a conventional calorie- and fat-restricted diet (intake of 500 kcal/day less than usual, ≤30% of calories from fat). Both groups received support at group meetings. At 1 year, the low-carb and low-fat groups did not differ significantly in retention rates (69% and 63%) or mean weight loss (–5.1 kg and –3.1 kg). However, low-carb dieters fared significantly better than low-fat dieters in changes in mean triglyceride levels (–58 mg/dL vs. +4 mg/dL), HDL (–1 mg/dL vs. –5 mg/dL), and hemoglobin A1C (–0.7% vs. –0.1%); LDL changes were similar in the two groups.

Comment: Results from these studies should mitigate concerns about adverse lipid effects of low-carbohydrate diets, and even suggest some benefit. Some caveats are that dropout rates were high (particularly among low-fat dieters in the shorter study), dietary adherence was suboptimal, and (in the longer study) 6-month weight-loss advantages in the low-carb group eventually were reduced. Nevertheless, one can no longer dismiss low-carbohydrate dieting as fad. An editorialist recommends encouraging overweight patients to engage in regular physical activity and to experiment with various diets, including low-carb, with an emphasis on healthy sources of fat and protein.

— Joel M. Gore, MD

Published in Journal Watch Cardiology July 9, 2004

to further respond to semi, I would just take a wild guess that most cardiologists patients are there due to any of the following: bad genetics, bad lifestyle - smoking, stress, no exercise, etc. and bad diet - meaning lots of fat AND carbs....

unfortunately we have two or three generations of doctors and experts who have ignored the carbs and focused on the fat... nevermind that the science doesnt support that position (see above, and loads of other studies posted in this thread).

Just ask any practicing cardiologist to whom they're giving angioplasities and bypass operations. I have. I can tell you the answer is not lifetime runners, cyclists or vegetarians.

You know, its interesting that every time someone has an intelligent counter to your assertion, the best you can do is google up a random report that you don't fully understand yourself. Then when someone with a response grounded in science finds the flaw in your fishing expedition, you sheepishly cry about medical community conspiracies.

Even if someone who has actually experienced cardio problems and has sucessfully solved them through specific means, then they must be some kind of mutant and should be ignored. This is called selective science. You only choose the findings that fit your agenda.

Just ask any practicing cardiologist to whom they're giving angioplasities and bypass operations. I have. I can tell you the answer is not lifetime runners, cyclists or vegetarians.

of course not, I dont disagree. I only disagree when you blame sat. fat and ingore all the other factors. Exercise does a lot to counter other bad habits, like eating excess starch and sugar. People who chose to be vegetarians are generally also people who chose not to smoke, etc.

You know, its interesting that every time someone has an intelligent counter to your assertion, the best you can do is google up a random report that you don't fully understand yourself. Then when someone with a response grounded in science finds the flaw in your fishing expedition, you sheepishly cry about medical community conspiracies.

I 'd love to see an intelligent grounded in science response that counters the numerous studies showing sat. fat without carbohydrates in the diet are not harmful and are indeed beneficial. Havent seen one yet.

and you're right, I'm not a scientist, but even you must admit there are a LOT of studies with the same finding = a low carb diet, that includes sat. fat, does NOT adversely affect CHD indicators, and actually improves some of them. Find me one single study that proves the opposite. I'll be waiting... and waiting... and waiting..

Even if someone who has actually experienced cardio problems and has sucessfully solved them through specific means, then they must be some kind of mutant and should be ignored. This is called selective science.

your case, if you are to be believed, is indeed rare. at any rate, you are blaming sat. fat and ignoring every other factor. You and Jody Gorran, what a swell pair.


You only choose the findings that fit your agenda.

and you, what do you do?

By your response, are you suggesting that most runners and cyclists eat low carb diets?

By your response, are you suggesting that most runners and cyclists eat low carb diets?



??? um, is this a trick question? I'm saying the obvious, exercise is good for the heart.

ask your cardiologists how many patients they have that have been following low carb diets for five years or more?

btw, Dr. Atkins and that South Beach guy, Agaston, were/are cardiologists....

STFUAR works best.

I defy anyone to argue against the STFUAR method.

ask your cardiologists how many patients they have that have been following low carb diets for five years or more?

btw, Dr. Atkins and that South Beach guy, Agaston, were/are cardiologists....


Your point is irrelevant. If what you claim, that the high consumption of carbs will contribute to heart disease, then we should see a preponderance of lifetime runners and cyclists getting their plumbing re-done. In fact, its the patients consuming too much saturated fat that end up getting the bypass operations.

I suspect is difficult to find many patients that have been following a low carb diet for five years. Most people can't even get to a goal weight, let alone stay on it for five years. Atkins' bankruptcy last year and the sharp decline in the public desire for low carb foods pretty much supports that.

Your point is irrelevant. If what you claim, that the high consumption of carbs will contribute to heart disease, then we should see a preponderance of lifetime runners and cyclists getting their plumbing re-done.

no, see comments regarding exercise, good for the heart, being... also see comments above regarding carbohydrates in combination with Sat. fat. sigh.... also, did I say carbs lead to heart disease? a high carb diet does increase triglyerides, and lower HDL, and wreck havoc with insulin, etc. but I couldnt say it leads to heart disease. Actually, Ornish has proven that a very low fat diet, along with exercise and meditation, etc. does reverse heart disease. But he failed to isolate the diet, for all we know, it was the exercise and meditation that did the trick.

anway, all I know is that Sat. fat have never been proven to cause heart disease. Got any studies, or just more semantics?

In fact, its the patients consuming too much saturated fat that end up getting the bypass operations.

no, its the folks who eat sat. fat in combo with carbs (you know, pizza, cheeseburger and fries, steak and potatoes...), and who smoke, dont exercise, have too much stress, etc. etc. Pls. see all of the studies when carbs are controlled, I've posted a few. also see virtually every primitive tribe found. Ex. Masai, Inuit. they eat a very high fat diet, no heart disease whatsoever. Also see 3.5 million years of evolution. Also see contents of mothers milk. sigh.....

I suspect is difficult to find many patients that have been following a low carb diet for five years. Most people can't even get to a goal weight, let alone stay on it for five years. Atkins' bankruptcy last year and the sharp decline in the public desire for low carb foods pretty much supports that.

even harder to find someone following an Ornish style diet. I actually tried that about ten years ago. I lost the same amt. of wt. but couldnt stick with it more than 6 months. Everytime I passed a pizza shop or smelled burgers I'd go mad with hunger. Not a problem with low carb.

bottom line: you have no science to back up your claim that Sat. fat is the problem. If you do, let's see it.

http://users.wfu.edu/clagra2/nutrition/real%20saturated%20fats.doc

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/5

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030405/food.asp

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/5/1102

That took all of about 2 minutes to find. If your really interested in the data, its out there, go find it yourself.

You just close your eyes to it all.

Youd rather hop from fad diet to fad diet. Lets see, you went from the extreme of ornish, to the extreme of paleo. The paleo one you've been on for 4 years and still cant get out of the 'overweight' catagory.

Maybe next year a new website with some new person trying to make a million with their book will pop up, and you can come on here and push it instead. But you'll still be unsuccessfull at actually achieving results like those of us who are doing it all wrong have.

bottom line: you have no science to back up your claim that Sat. fat is the problem. If you do, let's see it.
i think they have established that ACAT prefers unsat.FA as a substrate to make chol. esters. when sat fat increases in diet, ACAT converts less chol to chol ester and more remains as the active free chol

even harder to find someone following an Ornish style diet. I actually tried that about ten years ago. I lost the same amt. of wt. but couldnt stick with it more than 6 months. Everytime I passed a pizza shop or smelled burgers I'd go mad with hunger. Not a problem with low carb.


I, and most of the world, is managing with a balanced diet (don't know what an Ornish diet is) and I have no problem smelling burgers. Perhaps some psychological issues are involved. Nonetheless, if you have no problem with low carb, how come you're still fat?

I, and most of the world, is managing with a balanced diet (don't know what an Ornish diet is) and I have no problem smelling burgers. Perhaps some psychological issues are involved. Nonetheless, if you have no problem with low carb, how come you're still fat?

you are really grasping at straws here bub. psychological issues? yeah, I have a hunger drive. I better go find a shrink!

I covered my fat issues about 15 pages ago... I like to eat! and drink! a lot! but still, I'm maintaining my wt. at about 30 pounds less than pre-low carb. and with exercise I'm hoping the rest comes off eventually.

you know, unless you can get some evidence together, I'm gonna have to put you on ignore with jarery. seems like all you can come up with at this point are insults, and franky, it's tiresome. I've said all I can, really, on the sat. fat issue. has never been proven to cause heart disease. case closed. how's he weather where you are?

I, and most of the world, is managing with a balanced diet


perhaps that "balanced diet" that "most of the world" is on has something to do with the diabetes and obesity epidemic that "most the world" is experiencing?

i think they have established that ACAT prefers unsat.FA as a substrate to make chol. esters. when sat fat increases in diet, ACAT converts less chol to chol ester and more remains as the active free chol

damn, looks purty (if that's you?) and talks fancy too! haven't got a clue what this means tho...

perhaps that "balanced diet" that "most of the world" is on has something to do with the diabetes and obesity epidemic that "most the world" is experiencing?

Most of the world covers more than the U.S.

As I said, if your lo-carb diet is working, then you should have lost the weight. Obviously it does not satisfy your hunger, as you have often touted.

http://users.wfu.edu/clagra2/nutrition/real%20saturated%20fats.doc



I downloaded this file and had a quick read but there are too many errors and ommisions. First it lumps transfatty acids together with saturated fatty acids and claims that transfats act the same way as satfats which is a favorite claim of some but its just nonsense. Saturated fats are perfectly stable where as transfats are the most unstable of them all.

Latter on it does mention that mothers milk IS 55% lipids but can't bring itself to admit that these "mothers milk" lipids are saturated which is a serious sin of ommision.

It read like it was a students report.

Regards, Anthony

Most of the world covers more than the U.S.

As I said, if your lo-carb diet is working, then you should have lost the weight. Obviously it does not satisfy your hunger, as you have often touted.

but I am VERY hungry! at any rate, low carbing satisfies my hunger better than any other diet plan, including "balanced" - whatever that means - you can come up with. of course it's no panacea, in the end, calories still do count, and "exercise is not optional" (a quote from Dr. Atkins, btw).

Most of the world covers more than the U.S.



hey, we agree on something. it (diabetes) is particularly bad in China and India.

damn, looks purty (if that's you?) and talks fancy too! haven't got a clue what this means tho...
i wish it was me...then i could truly be in love with myself :D

hey, we agree on something. it (diabetes) is particularly bad in China and India.

So you think a balanced diet causes diabetes?

So you think a balanced diet causes diabetes?

Balanced diet in China and India?

Heavens, most of the population subsist on rice or wheat and will gladly get their hands on whatever protein/fat they can but its hard to come by unless your rich.

Regards, Anthony

So you think a balanced diet causes diabetes?


ok, that's it! you're on the ignore list...

just kidding. I dont know what a "balanced diet" means. to me, a properly balanced diet is one that is in line with the diet we humans evolved on for 3.5 whatever million years, that being high fat, moderate protein, low carb.

I'm guessing that by "balanced" you mean a diet that is lowish in fats, avoids sat. fats, includes a lot of fruiits and vegetables and whole grains. that diet, in combo with exercise, shouldnt lead to type 2 diabetes, as far as I know. but I would argue that not a lot of foks stick to that kind of diet.

I do think the excess carbs in the modern diet, in particular refined carbs, have a lot to do with the type 2 diabetes epidemic. you know, pizzas, burgers with the buns, french fries, ice cream, pastries... you know, what most people eat on a regular basis. and then there's high fructose corn syrup in everything....

and It's been shown over and over again that a low carb diet reverses type 2 diabetes.

and It's been shown over and over again that a low carb diet reverses type 2 diabetes.

The American Diabetes Association doesn't agree with you.

The American Diabetes Association doesn't agree with you.

The problem with this statement is that the American Diabetes Association isn't a disinterested party. Diabetes Associations around the world have been reccomending high carb/low fat diets for years and now their in the unenviable position of trying to explain why they made such reccomendations in the first place. The Australian Diabetes Association did at least reverse its stand on egg yolks and now states that they are good.

EDIT: OK I've made a mistake here. Its the Australian HEART foundation that recently reversed its reccomendations to now say that egg yolks are OK. Thing is that LONG before the invention of insulin the only known treatment for diabetes was to put the patients on zero carb/massively high fat diets and it kept patients alive. This was the tradition.

Regards, Anthony

The American Diabetes Association doesn't agree with you.

science doesn't agree with American Diabetes Assocation.

The author of the paleo diet that mrfreddy always resorts to, recomends lowering sat fats.

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/faqs/

http://www.observedtrials.net/vb/images/smilie/luke.gif

The author of the paleo diet that mrfreddy always resorts to, recomends lowering sat fats.

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/faqs/

Good point. Hey Freddy, how do you resolve the dichotomy between what you say about saturated fat and what Dr. Cordain has to say about it?

Good point. Hey Freddy, how do you resolve the dichotomy between what you say about saturated fat and what Dr. Cordain has to say about it?


silly point, Cordain is an idiot who is mocked and made fun of by all the other paleo gurus! I'd supply links but I'm too sleepy now....

summary of another NEW study:

http://www.theomnivore.com/WHI_Feb_2006.html

"The results of the trial clearly showed that a low-fat diet failed to prevent cardiovascular disease or cancer in women even when followed continuously for eight years. In women with pre-existing CVD, the low-fat diet increased the risk of CVD by 26 percent!



followup article by Colpo
http://www.theomnivore.com/Low_Fat_Diet_Is_Stupid_And_Dangerous.html

Good point. Hey Freddy, how do you resolve the dichotomy between what you say about saturated fat and what Dr. Cordain has to say about it?


I had a read of that page. It was interesting that most of it was dedicated to addressing the critisisms of his "Low fat" Paelo diet as directed to him by Sally Fallon of the Weston A Price Foundation.

Now I don't feel that Sally Fallon shouldn't be above critisism and I'm not going to address all his points but there's still the arguement about what a Paelo diet realy is. My view is that the study of the diets of the last native Americans is as close as we're going to get and the're a culture that prized the fatty parts of the animal. The paelo guy (Dr Cordain?) addresses the WAPF claim of "the whole animal" and then claims that when looking at the whole animal (wild game) throughout the year its not that high in fat. Well I don't think that this is something that the WAPF disputes as traditional people hunted certain animals at the time of the year when they were fattest and quite often only consumed the fattest parts.

The Paelo Dr claims to be letting the science speak for itself but you still have the fundamental problem that he's anti-saturated fat when to this day there's no scientific evidence to back this notion. Lots of people are looking for the evidence but to this day it hasn't been found yet.

Regards, Anthony

summary of another NEW study:

http://www.theomnivore.com/WHI_Feb_2006.html

"The results of the trial clearly showed that a low-fat diet failed to prevent cardiovascular disease or cancer in women even when followed continuously for eight years. In women with pre-existing CVD, the low-fat diet increased the risk of CVD by 26 percent!

followup article by Colpo
http://www.theomnivore.com/Low_Fat_Diet_Is_Stupid_And_Dangerous.html


Just goes to show that everyone is able to use the same study to push their own agenda. You know the old theory of "stats dont lie but liars use stats".

I've read about 20 reports since that study was released. already i've read multiple conflicting views all using the same data as their supporting evidence.

Omnivore has an opinion he presents, and then picks data from studies that support his point. Same as every 'voice' preaching to the masses. Seems no one presenting data is innocent of it. Omnivore, harvard, mayoclinic, and im sure mercola and weston price foundataion also will all soon have conclusions supporting their views from the same data.

Based all on the same study Ive also read (from memory so the numbers arnt correct most likely) that :

-the study only proves that people already overweight and in their early 60's cant change the chance of cvd with diet alone.

-those who started with the highest fat intake prior to the study, and reduced the most thrugh the study, had a 20% reduction in breast cancer.

-those who ate the most carbs had no increase in diabetes or insulin problems

etc etc etc.

End result is in regards to nutrition and diet, there is rarely ever a smoking gun pointing conclusive evidence at anything. Its all best guesses, with every concievable viewpoint having support. Us poor non nutritionists are left to sort thru it all, and make our own decision since there is few expert decisions that can agree.

Heck they cant even decide what man ate for the last 10,000 years. Its all guess and opinion, and the experts still cant agreee and stick to it. It changes, just like everything.

So pick a view, or make up your own.

the sharp decline in the public desire for low carb foods pretty much supports that.

I don't know what world you are living in, but around here, I would say this idea that the public desire for low carb foods is seeing a sharp decline is less than accurate... :)

I don't know what world you are living in, but around here, I would say this idea that the public desire for low carb foods is seeing a sharp decline is less than accurate... :)

Perhaps its a local phenomenon over there. Nationwide its declined dramatically, which is why Atkins filed for bankruptcy last August. Here's an NPR link about that and the low carb craze decline.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4783324

I have no sympathy for the Atkins company. They were selling soy laden crap anyway. Dr Atkins was very much into just natural food actually but I suppose he made money selling his name and then he had to be accepting of what was sold in his name.

So you don't need to buy anything special from any company to eat low carb. In fact its better if you don't.

I mean nothing sounds more STUPID to me than low carb pasta.:rolleyes:

Regards, Anthony

actually, that dreamfields pasta tastes pretty good... I tried it recently out of curiosity, and because I kinda missed pasta carbarnara (you know, eggs, bacon, butter, cheese, cream - delicious!) . tastes just like the real thing, and no sugar spike...