Training & Nutrition - Certified Nutritionalist

All good points. I've yet to see any study that disproves the time-proven way to loose weight and increase fitness, as well as maintaining weight and fitness - exercise and a balanced diet. BALANCE in activity, what you eat and how you eat is the key. Going to extremes in any area may produce results, but the results are neither long-term nor healthy.


Why would you care about any study that does not pertain to you, if you have not accomplished it it is not worth anything. All of the sudden studies are relavent when a few minutes ago they were not.

Is it that you do not agree with the scentific evidence so it is deemed wrong or useless, or can we not use the research of others to make informed decisions so we are not all using the trail and error method and starting back at the beginning every time we do something.

I do not agree with Mike's choice of diets, but if it works for him and he feels good by doing it then he should continue regardless of what the research say. At least Mike is looking for sound evidence and not just heresay. As lillypad said we are much to complex to be categorised by one study. When thousands of people are studied and the results are repeated consistently again and again does that not mean anything?

Although healthy humans are all different we share many things alike, that is why when one has a blood tested we can know about there health by looking at levels of chemicals in the blood. The same body systems in healthy people work in a predictable way, although there are variables some things can be predicted with great accuracy. If one is in a long protein deficit this is shown by pre-albumin levels. If it were not for studies the latter would not be known.

That being said I do not wholly agree with chipcom, but I respect your right to voice your opinion no matter what I think of it.

I do agree with you on the quoted post though that there is a balanced needed, because when I do not balace all my food and execersise my health suffers.

Thank you

The whole fat is bad saturated fats deal has been way overblown. I think a typical low carb diet could be just the absence of garbage carbs. Sugars wheat and other low nutritional carbs. Hell just eliminating all the junk food would do it for most people. Most foods that are pre made have sugar in them and bad fats.
The food pyramid was based on corporate input not human nutrition. You can see who spent the most bucks. The veggie or fruit farmers or the wheat/grain farmers? Just look at the aisles at the store several of cereals and breads far more then anything else. But most people don’t need that many carbs. They tend to be low in nutrition and high in calories.
Humans have eaten high fat forever but now it is killing us? What’s wrong with the picture? Cholesterol is horrible but natural sources of it tend to cause the body to produce less cholesterol. But if you listen to current heath advice it is a horrible thing we all should avoid.
Lazyness and fast foods/junk food pre prepared foods are the bad things. Plus our low quality foods that are mass produced these days.

The food pyramid was based on corporate input not human nutrition. You can see who spent the most bucks. The veggie or fruit farmers or the wheat/grain farmers?

Can you substatiate this claim or is it your opinion

Why would you care about any study that does not pertain to you, if you have not accomplished it it is not worth anything. All of the sudden studies are relavent when a few minutes ago they were not.

Perhaps because the tried and proven methods have accomplished results, which is why they are tried and proven? I'm not the one debating all the the studies, none of which attempt to disprove the tried and proven, but are rather trying to build a better mousetrap...you are all doing that just fine by yourselves...I merely stated the obvious, that none of these studies disprove the tried and proven methods that have achieved results for decades, if not longer. Results are reality, studies are...studies.

What is your opinion on eating a balanced diet that excludes none of the food groups and extoles the virtues of moderation, one that says you need to consume grains, fruit, vegtables, meats and meat substitutes. I'm a food traditonalist and I'm all for balance. I personaly don't need grains but the Weston A Price foundation isn't against them. It's just that if you eat grains they need to be carefully prepared in the traditional manner to neutralize there anti-nutrient properties. Good luck finding any properly prepared grain foods anywhere. What do you mean by "meat substitutes". Again the WAPF is not totaly against soy but soy should only be prepared in the traditional asian way's and consumed in moderation.

From your earlier posts I get the opinion that you think that saturated fats are needed for a healthy diet, but do you not think that over doing saturated fats can be harmful, or is an unlimited amount ok, and whithout any side effects such as hardening of the arteries? What is the aieteology of heart disease, hypertension, and peripheral vascular disease? Are these diseases seen more commonly in people who eat saturated fats in excess? Or is the reason for for these diseases because we are living longer and now have the time to clog our arteries, whereas in the old days the commonner would be dead by the age of 30? One of the benefits of consuming lots of calories from saturated fats is that it's extremely rare to overeat. Saturated fats satisfy your hunger, you receive strong signals that your full and you stop eating. I don't eat a lot of food volume wise. No-one knows precisely what the cause of heart disease or atery hardening is just yet although one of the strong theories is that its caused by an infection. Transfatty acids are also a culprit. If you look at the real statistics humans have never consumed less saturated fats in the last 100 years than they do now. Polyunsaturated oils are now the dominant fat. Are we realy living longer now than in the past? See, http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/nasty_brutish_short.html

I checked out your websight that you recommended and I noticed that the doctor refutes other people evidence with her own evidence but does not back up any of her own with references. She refers to a study done in China but does not properly reference the study so that people can look it up and verify what she says; she also does this with any other study she refers to. This person being a doctor must know her APA it was required in her learning, but she does not use it. The funny thing is that the only type of reference that she gives that anyone can trace is to a news agency which are famous for taking studies out of context. I'm not sure who's article your refering to. The WAPF site has many articles from different contributors and is usualy well referenced. The WAPF is not claiming to have the Science to back everything. The driving principle behind the work of WAPF is "tradition" and tradition is scientificaly valid as the "Control".

Thank you

Someone else refered to one of my posts claiming that I stated that my diet was carbohydrate free and being concerned that I was wrong because I was eating fruit which of course are carbohydrates. Lets put this straight. I claim that I have a LOW carbohydrate diet and incase you didn't know, vegetables are carbohydrates! Grains are grains and foods like potato's, sweet potato's and pumkin are starches which I normaly don't have but sometimes I consume small amounts of them.

Regards, Anthony

Can you substatiate this claim or is it your opinion

do a little research thats the best way to learn. but if it was so great why was it changed? those who can pay the most push the goverment where they want it. look at the infuence the sugar industry had on the government. the fake sugar companies pushed out the natural sweetner stevia so they could make larger profits. made the FDA not reccomend it even though it has bene proven safe for thousands of years.

Someone else refered to one of my posts claiming that I stated that my diet was carbohydrate free and being concerned that I was wrong because I was eating fruit which of course are carbohydrates. Lets put this straight. I claim that I have a LOW carbohydrate diet and incase you didn't know, vegetables are carbohydrates! Grains are grains and foods like potato's, sweet potato's and pumkin are starches which I normaly don't have but sometimes I consume small amounts of them.

Regards, Anthony

You say they rely on tradition but they disprove other peoples theories by saying that there is sceientific evidence to prove it but they do not let the reader access the reference, this implies that they are hiding something. You also claim that people ate more saturated fats on the old days, maybe this is why lifespan was so short. Also the people in the past times led much shorter lives and were less healthy. Now you go on to say check the statistics but you do not supply a source. If we relied on tradidtion today we would far less advanced than we are today.

do a little research thats the best way to learn. but if it was so great why was it changed? those who can pay the most push the goverment where they want it. look at the infuence the sugar industry had on the government. the fake sugar companies pushed out the natural sweetner stevia so they could make larger profits. made the FDA not reccomend it even though it has bene proven safe for thousands of years.

The food pyramid probably because of research and an understanding of the nutrients. I have not seen the food pyramid because I am north of the border.

I do lots of research but not on the subject you quote. If it is part of a conspiracy theory can you do more than offer your opinion, if you have the proof that it is a conspiracy will you not prove it? It would be nice to know how you came to the opinion that it is big business paying for there spot on the pyramid, and not just say something arbitrarily.

You say they rely on tradition but they disprove other peoples theories by saying that there is sceientific evidence to prove it but they do not let the reader access the reference, this implies that they are hiding something. You also claim that people ate more saturated fats on the old days, maybe this is why lifespan was so short. Also the people in the past times led much shorter lives and were less healthy. Now you go on to say check the statistics but you do not supply a source. If we relied on tradidtion today we would far less advanced than we are today.

Well firstly post a link to the article you are refering to. The WAPF site is generaly well referenced so I don't know which article you are refering to. See the link I posted about the supposed short lives of our ancestors. Cause and effect is needed here. Some of our ancestors had short lives but they would have been the early city dwellers living in squalour without running water or sewerage. It's got nothing to do with diet except maybe a LACK of animal fats. People subsisting on a grain only diet isn't that healthy.

Regards, Anthony

Well firstly post a link to the article you are refering to. The WAPF site is generaly well referenced so I don't know which article you are refering to. See the link I posted about the supposed short lives of our ancestors. Cause and effect is needed here. Some of our ancestors had short lives but they would have been the early city dwellers living in squalour without running water or sewerage. It's got nothing to do with diet except maybe a LACK of animal fats. People subsisting on a grain only diet isn't that healthy.

Regards, Anthony

Well Anthony I am going to have to eat my words regarding the reference thing, I did not look thoroughly at the site as I should have. Please accept my apology and disregard all the statements I said earlier about the credibility of refrence material regarding your sight. I was wong and at your request I will post this retraction on all the posts where that concern the subject of the validity of of the sight you recomended.

Thank you

Well Anthony I am going to have to eat my words regarding the reference thing, I did not look thoroughly at the site as I should have. Please accept my apology and disregard all the statements I said earlier about the credibility of refrence material regarding your sight. I was wong and at your request I will post this retraction on all the posts where that concern the subject of the validity of of the sight you recomended.

Thank you

This retraction is sufficient. I didn't want to claim that every last article on the WAPF site was fully refferenced, or that no one would want to challenge some of the references however I was at a loss to know which article you were reffering to. There are numerous articles on the WAPF site from guest contributors.

Regards, Anthony

Also the people in the past times led much shorter lives and were less healthy.

Sure, people live longer now a days for various reasons.. but were they really less healthy? the obesidy %'s are way higher now!!!!! Diabeties is way up too!!! Americas health in regards to food intake has gone down the shtter!

Sure, people live longer now a days for various reasons.. but were they really less healthy? the obesidy %'s are way higher now!!!!! Diabeties is way up too!!! Americas health in regards to food intake has gone down the shtter!

Yes, I worded this to elicit a response. I spend time working at the nursing home, and in reviewing charts I often wonder, if they were not on so many drugs and had so many operations would they still be alive. Why are we living longer, is it the lives we lead or is it medicine and science. I know if i was born 100 years ago I would have not seen my first birthday. I also wonder about immunizations, are they making us weaker as a race or stonger. Or is it just creating superbugs like MRSA and the like.

My opinion is one of balance and trying to eat the good stuff that the earth provides, and try to enjpy yourself along the way. If someone makes it for you or the directions are on a box that it came in I try to avoid it.

The new discoveries have outweighed the new problems. Simple vaccines now get people past diseases that may have taken 50 years off their lives. A person that got past all the common diseases from back then and died of "natural causes" lived nearly as long as a person would today (three score and ten).

I’ve tried this whole diet thing for years. First this, then that and never really made any progress. It is a bizarre thought process that I have noticed with myself.

Let’s say that I’ve decided to eat low fat, I do real well at it for a while. Then, I start missing the stuff and pretty soon I think of the things I’ve read about carbohydrate restriction and can reason myself into a big piece of meat.

Truth be told, for me, I can’t be told I can’t have something. I’ll immediately start to crave it. I am just working on portion control, eating slow enough for my body to tell me that it is full and not getting the deprived feeling that leads me to overeating.

That coupled with some quality time with Felicia (my road bike) and I hope to control my weight.


one of the many wondeful aspects of low carbing is that you actually lose your cravings for sugary sweet things... hard to believe but it is absolutely true. must be because you are giving your body what it needs - fats and proteins. It's a scientific fact that your body does not actually need carbs, ask the eskimos, they know...

The basic diet and exercise and the "calories in be less than the calories out" will work if you can't seem to cut out certain types of food from your diet. It is very important that you continue to exercise and try to increase the amount and quality of your exercise as you lose weight.

There have been many studies conducted that have shown a correlation between exercise and the ability to lower the body's "set point", the weight that your body wants to maintain. It certainly has for me. Do some research on this topic. I think that you will find the results very interesting.

one of the many wondeful aspects of low carbing is that you actually lose your cravings for sugary sweet things... hard to believe but it is absolutely true. must be because you are giving your body what it needs - fats and proteins. It's a scientific fact that your body does not actually need carbs, ask the eskimos, they know...


Have you taken a look at all the culture bound syndromes that only the Inuit suffer because of their lack of carbs? There are ceratain diseases that only they suffer from because of the megadoses of vitamins that they ingest as a result of thier high protein diet. Even they have not fully adjusted to an all meat diet.

I have heard that people who eat only protien can suffer from protein poisoning if there is not enough fat attached to the meat they eat, but I guess thats why the Inuit always consumed alot of fat along with the meat.

Your body may not need that many carbs but your brain is the major consumer of carbs, whithout carbs you brain is not getting the fuel that it needs.

Have you taken a look at all the culture bound syndromes that only the Inuit suffer because of their lack of carbs? There are ceratain diseases that only they suffer from because of the megadoses of vitamins that they ingest as a result of thier high protein diet. Even they have not fully adjusted to an all meat diet.

I have heard that people who eat only protien can suffer from protein poisoning if there is not enough fat attached to the meat they eat, but I guess thats why the Inuit always consumed alot of fat along with the meat.

Your body may not need that many carbs but your brain is the major consumer of carbs, whithout carbs you brain is not getting the fuel that it needs.

I dont know about the diseases you refer to regarding the inuiits, could you provide more detail? I do know that EVERY primitive society found still subsisting on the hunter gather model, ie. eating a lot of fat and protein, have been found to have no cancer, no heart disease, no diabetes... (well, not until they switch to a modern diet...)


this brain sugar requirement is just another fallacy that anti-low carb folks love to bring up, nevermind it has no scientifiic basis. yes your brain needs a tiny amount of sugar, which your body is happy to provide, whether you consume carbs or not... I've been eating very little carbs for almost 4 years, and, as far as I know, my brain hasn't conked out... I forget the name of the process, but your body very easily converts protein to glucose as needed... glucogenisis or something like that?

Gluconeogenesis (the creation of new glucose) is the production of glucose from noncarbohydrate sources. This means that you (and your brain) can survive with absolutely no carbohydrate consumption. This process occurs during starvation or extremely low carbohydrate diets. The brain is the only part of the body that requires glucose in order to function. The rest of the body can survive on ketones (the product of fat breakdown).

akarius - Megadoses of vitamins due to a high-protein diet? Which vitamins?

one of the many wondeful aspects of low carbing is that you actually lose your cravings for sugary sweet things... hard to believe but it is absolutely true. must be because you are giving your body what it needs - fats and proteins. It's a scientific fact that your body does not actually need carbs, ask the eskimos, they know...

OK I'm a big advocate of a high fat/protein diet but there's one thing I better set you straight on. Inuits DO eat some carbohydrates and some carbohydrates ARE important to them.

Are you ready for this. Stop eating and drinking before you read the next line.

Inuits eat the stomach contents of there prey providing them with partially/pre digested carbs!!

Also the megadose of vitamins scare tactics stem from the consumption of huge amounts of animal fats and animal fats are a huge source of vitA and vitD. Mega dosing can be an issue but the harmfull effects of it are overblown. Overdosing of REAL vitA and vitD will correct itself quickly once the dose is reduced and no long term harm has been noted.

Now overdosing on SYNTHETIC vitA and vitD is a different story. That is harmful so take it easy on your suppliments. What's happened here is that is has been shown clinicaly that high levels of synthetic vitA has caused harm so they have simply ASSUMED that real vitA has the same effect with no evidence at all. See, http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitaminasaga.html

Regards, Anthony

Just for fun, here are some consumables (including food) used up by a pro cycling team in a season (guess which country)...





...Ever wonder what it's like to feed, clothe, take care of, and keep rolling a ProTour team numbering 29 riders? Wonder no more, BiciRace has some numbers for the interested:

Technical:
120 Road bikes
29 TT bikes
180 pairs of wheels
60 pairs of wheels for cobbles

Kit:
8,000 cycling caps (they must really use them as toilet paper)
500 jerseys
350 pairs of shorts
450 pairs of socks
500 pairs of gloves

Food:
22,000 drink bottles
5,000 musettes
500L of olive oil
120Kg parmesan cheese
1,000Kg of pasta


link to above (http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/default.asp?pg=fullstory&id=3714)

OK I'm a big advocate of a high fat/protein diet but there's one thing I better set you straight on. Inuits DO eat some carbohydrates and some carbohydrates ARE important to them.

Are you ready for this. Stop eating and drinking before you read the next line.

Inuits eat the stomach contents of there prey providing them with partially/pre digested carbs!!



Regards, Anthony


um... I'll think I'll stick with buttered brocoll and asparagus, thank you.... would partially digested carbs count as refined carbs, ha haaa?? anyway, nobody really needs carbs, but they are a good source of some nice nutrients, as long as the starch/sugar content is low enough to not knock your blood sugar for a loop. that said, perhaps because of their particular diet, there is something in those stomach contents that the inuits need, do you have any idea what it is? I know they get their vitamin c through some strange source, like eating eyeballs or something equally weird.

heck, all a body 'needs' is a mixture in a drip like they give coma patients. The body never 'needs' to get out of bed and the mind never 'needs' to wake up.

But i think i'll stick to waking up, and living each day. That includes eating balanced meals. I eat what i want, just everything in moderation. You guys going to each extreme of the food chain are just whacko in my mind :P

um... I'll think I'll stick with buttered brocoll and asparagus, thank you.... would partially digested carbs count as refined carbs, ha haaa?? anyway, nobody really needs carbs, but they are a good source of some nice nutrients, as long as the starch/sugar content is low enough to not knock your blood sugar for a loop. that said, perhaps because of their particular diet, there is something in those stomach contents that the inuits need, do you have any idea what it is? I know they get their vitamin c through some strange source, like eating eyeballs or something equally weird.

I used to have a link to a realy good article on the Inuit but I can't find it or the article on the web for them moment. Yes eyeballs are realy healthy. They used to deliberately let there fish ROT as well. An aquired taste but it increased the nutrients.

Personaly I eat my vegetables and I'm not reccomending that anyone shouldn't. You just don't need the grains or starches although in moderation and with the right preperation there OK.

Regards, Anthony

heck, all a body 'needs' is a mixture in a drip like they give coma patients. The body never 'needs' to get out of bed and the mind never 'needs' to wake up.

But i think i'll stick to waking up, and living each day. That includes eating balanced meals. I eat what i want, just everything in moderation. You guys going to each extreme of the food chain are just whacko in my mind :P

you folks who refuse to acknowledge what sugar does to your body are just whacko in my mind.....

I dont know about the diseases you refer to regarding the inuiits, could you provide more detail? I do know that EVERY primitive society found still subsisting on the hunter gather model, ie. eating a lot of fat and protein, have been found to have no cancer, no heart disease, no diabetes... (well, not until they switch to a modern diet...)

The syndrome I refer to is called Pibloktoq that is thought to be caused by a calcium and vitamin D deficency and hypervitaminosis of vitamin A due to the toxic levels found in the livers, kidney and fat which the Inuit consume in large quantities (Landy 1985)

I like my grains, when I do not eat grains I the plumming does not work properly. I find the mix of soluble and insoluble fibre keeps things in perfect balance for me, whithout them I am on the verge of chronicity. I was raised on Turkish lentils, I am told this is one of the worlds oldest foods, for me nothing makes me feel better than my lentils.

Personally when I eat to much meat I do not feel that good, for me what works is a balance of food from all the groups, when I have a meal that has a small amount of protein lots of veggies and a small amount of unrefined grains I am set for a much longer time, besides fiber slows gastric emtying and all the other goodies in my gut cause all the chemicals of digestion to be realeased signal my brain that my hunger has been satiated. Besides when I eat too much protein I am not able to do any excersise

I feel that low carb dieting is the way to go. you might like this site.http://www.theomnivore.com/home.html

Fully referenced, and the guy just got published in JPANDS!!

you might like this site.http://www.theomnivore.com/home.html

Fully referenced, and the guy just got published in JPANDS!!


Thanks for the link! what a fantastic bit of info! I have not had a chance to read it all yet, but my favorite so far is this:

Are Low Carb Diets Bad For Your Heart?

by Anthony Colpo,
November 17, 2005.


My inbox has seen a sudden influx of emails from concerned folks wanting me to comment on the most recent attempt to bash low-carbohydrate nutrition. I am talking about an Oxford University study that allegedly showed low carbohydrate diets can "reduce energy to the heart". The study has not been published, only reported in the popular media, a forum which needs little encouragement to place the most sensationalist possible spin on 'negative' diet findings.

According to a BBC article, titled Low carb diets 'cut heart energy', a team of Oxford researchers monitored 19 people for a grand total of two weeks. They reportedly found that the energy stored in the heart was reduced by an average of 16% among those who followed a high fat, low carbohydrate diet. According to the article, their hearts also became slightly 'stiffer', "not relaxing quite as well as before the diet".

According to the article, "One of the participants even noticed he could not manage his daily run while on the diet".

The changes were reversed within two weeks after returning to a normal diet.

According to Professor Peter Weissberg, "We would certainly not recommend high fat-low carb diets to anyone who wants to lose weight and look after their heart."

The most disheartening thing here is, not the study itself, but the fact that so many people will take seriously the extremely fanciful conclusions being drawn from it by the media.

Anyone who knows anything about basic biochemistry is aware that feeding a high-carbohydrate diet will result in increasing reliance on carbohydrate to supply one's energy needs. Eating a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet, on the other hand, will cause a marked increase in the use of fatty acids and ketones for fuel.

Most people nowadays eat a high-carbohydrate diet, a mode of eating that has predominated since the dawn of the Agricultural Revolution. When someone who has been eating a high-carbohydrate diet all their life decides to suddenly embark on a very low-carbohydrate diet, they are often given a striking first-hand lesson in the principle of metabolic economy. This principle refers to the fact that the body will minimize or maximize the production of hormones and enzymes according to its requirements. In other words, if you eat a high-carbohydrate diet, your body will maximize the production of hormones and enzymes involved in metabolizing glucose for fuel--and for converting excess glucose to fat for storage in adipose tissue. Because substrate supply determines substrate use, the body's fat-burning mechanisms will be minimized.

If you consume a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet, the exact opposite occurs--the body's fat-burning activities are ramped up, and the use of fatty acids and ketones as a fuel source jumps markedly. Glucose will furnish a much lower portion of cellular energy requirements.

The body cannot be primarily a fat-burner and carb-burner at the same time--it's either one or the other. And if you are a high-carbohydrate eater who has decided to exercise the "other" option, you need to be aware that the body does not make the switch overnight. Someone who has been following a high-carb diet all their life must first go through an adaptation period in which the body is forced to up-regulate its fat-burning pathways.

Many people who have drastically cut carbs overnight will be all too aware of the "energy crash" that often occurs in the first few weeks after changing their diet. For some this occurs more severely than others, and for some lucky folks it never seems to occur at all. In a study with cyclists placed on a zero-carb diet, the researchers observed that their bodies were still showing signs of improved adaptation four weeks after switching to their carbohydrate-free regimen.

So, when a team from Oxford come along with the astounding revelation that nineteen volunteers who no doubt had been following the mixed, carbohydrate-dominant western CRAP diet (Cereals, Refined And Processed foods) had a hard time during a mere two weeks on a low-carbohydrate diet, my response is a thoroughly jaded, "so bloody what?"

I have no trouble at all believing the subjects had lower "heart energy" during this brief two-week period. In fact, I bet they also had lower "brain energy", lower "muscle energy" and even lower energy in the anatomical regions responsible for the continuation of the human race. The reason? These folks were in metabolic pergatory! They had been deprived of carbs, but were yet to complete the switch to fat-burning!

They lacked 'energy'? You bet they did!

What we really need to know is what would have happened if these folks had been allowed to continue way beyond the initial adaptation period. If the experiences of folks like myself and countless others are anything to go by, they may just have felt better than ever, experiencing new-found levels of physical and mental energy.

And what would have happened after their hearts had become fully fat-adapted? Would they have all keeled over from heart failure? Well, go read the published studies of the Masai and the Inuit, populations in whom carbohydrate consumption was minimal and cardiovascular disease was almost non-existent, and then decide for yourself. Read the published report of the Bellevue hospital experiment, in which Arctic explorers Steffansson and Anderson lived on an all-meat diet for 12 months, with the supervising doctors reporting that both men emerged from the experiment in better physical condition than at the start.

Perhaps the only useful thing to come from this study, if only it were to be interpreted properly by our (mis)information providers, is that most people switching to a low-carbohydrate diet after years of carbohydrate-dominant eating should do so in a gradual, incremental fashion. Suddenly cutting carbs to very low levels overnight can be a very rude metabolic shock to the body, one that folks already in a sub-optimal state of health may be best served avoiding.

yeah, it's a comprehensive site, and he's meticulous about referencing EVERYTHING.

and to top off he's a cyclist :p
he just bought a Scott CR1 :)

send him an email. I think he appreciates hearing from professionals who are prepared to go against the 'grain'.

I used to have a link to a realy good article on the Inuit but I can't find it or the article on the web for them moment. Yes eyeballs are realy healthy. They used to deliberately let there fish ROT as well. An aquired taste but it increased the nutrients.

Personaly I eat my vegetables and I'm not reccomending that anyone shouldn't. You just don't need the grains or starches although in moderation and with the right preperation there OK.

Regards, Anthony

here's an article that explains how they get vitamin C (beluga whale skin)... also casts some doubt on the stomach contents story...

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010119.html

I like my grains, when I do not eat grains I the plumming does not work properly. I find the mix of soluble and insoluble fibre keeps things in perfect balance for me, whithout them I am on the verge of chronicity. I was raised on Turkish lentils, I am told this is one of the worlds oldest foods, for me nothing makes me feel better than my lentils.

Personally when I eat to much meat I do not feel that good, for me what works is a balance of food from all the groups, when I have a meal that has a small amount of protein lots of veggies and a small amount of unrefined grains I am set for a much longer time, besides fiber slows gastric emtying and all the other goodies in my gut cause all the chemicals of digestion to be realeased signal my brain that my hunger has been satiated. Besides when I eat too much protein I am not able to do any excersise

the plumbing problem is an interesting one. I've heard it argued that we dont actually need fiber, and that eating a lot of carbs is actually damaging to your plumbing... that's why you have problems if you dont eat your grains, your body takes a little time to recuperate and get back to doing what it evolved over time to do, i.e. process meat and fat. I remember being constipated when I started low carbing, and badly constipated at that.. but that went away after a few weeks, never to come back. Not even when I experimented for a little while with just eating eggs and meat, nothing else. Regular as clockwork.

I've been eating very little carbs for almost 4 years, and, as far as I know, my brain hasn't conked out... I forget the name of the process, but your body very easily converts protein to glucose as needed... glucogenisis or something like that?

Since I assume that people posting here actually do ride their bike regularly, Mr Freddy, do some _real_ research on how your body gets its fuel for exercise. Look at the various energy systems and how and where that fuel comes from. Look especially at glycogen and its role(s) because I'm fairly certain you have chronically low glycogen stores. Low carbs is terrible for people who exercise say, 5+ hours a week because you do in fact need carbs and glycogen to hep fuel your muscles during that exercise.

Do you know that ammonia is very counter-productive during exercise? Lots of ammonia is produced when the body has to use proteins for fuel. Converting protein to glucose is far from optimally efficient, and you will also be cannibalizing muscle tissue (proteins) in the body's desperate attempt to get some fuel.

So you can ride and ride on your low carb diet, but just know that every time you ride for more than about an hour you are destroying muscle tissue to fuel your exercise, and your inability to provide all the fuel your body COULD be using is lowering your performance during exercise. Your recovery will also be much slower and sub-optimal because you are not sufficiently replenishing your glycogen stores (because you are not giving yourself enough of the carbs you need to do this).

Low-carb is fine for some people-the ones who do little, to no exercise.

So you can ride and ride on your low carb diet, but just know that every time you ride for more than about an hour you are destroying muscle tissue to fuel your exercise, and your inability to provide all the fuel your body COULD be using is lowering your performance during exercise. Your recovery will also be much slower and sub-optimal because you are not sufficiently replenishing your glycogen stores (because you are not giving yourself enough of the carbs you need to do this).

Low-carb is fine for some people-the ones who do little, to no exercise.

why is it that someone says low carb and people act like it is no carb? low carb means no junk carbs and thats what most americans eat. you can be low carb and eat carbs too.

why is it that someone says low carb and people act like it is no carb?exactly! There's a massive difference between low carbs and no carbs

Since I assume that people posting here actually do ride their bike regularly, Mr Freddy, do some _real_ research on how your body gets its fuel for exercise. Look at the various energy systems and how and where that fuel comes from. Look especially at glycogen and its role(s) because I'm fairly certain you have chronically low glycogen stores. Low carbs is terrible for people who exercise say, 5+ hours a week because you do in fact need carbs and glycogen to hep fuel your muscles during that exercise.

Do you know that ammonia is very counter-productive during exercise? Lots of ammonia is produced when the body has to use proteins for fuel. Converting protein to glucose is far from optimally efficient, and you will also be cannibalizing muscle tissue (proteins) in the body's desperate attempt to get some fuel.

So you can ride and ride on your low carb diet, but just know that every time you ride for more than about an hour you are destroying muscle tissue to fuel your exercise, and your inability to provide all the fuel your body COULD be using is lowering your performance during exercise. Your recovery will also be much slower and sub-optimal because you are not sufficiently replenishing your glycogen stores (because you are not giving yourself enough of the carbs you need to do this).

Low-carb is fine for some people-the ones who do little, to no exercise.

I've done a lot of research, and I know how my body gets fuel. It runs on fat, for the most part.

to paraphrase bogey, you've been misinformed. your body is very adept at using fat for fuel (it's does take a few weeks to adjust if you've been eating a lot of carbs). there are several studies out verifying this. this is science, not myth. I'll have to look for it, but there is a study somewhere showing endurance athletes performance actually improved after switching diets (from high carbs to high fat), and training. the training is essential, since it takes some time for your body to switch from burning glucose all the time to burning fat. But once the switchover is complete, you will have turned your fine self into a very efficient fat burning machine.

and think about it, your body can store only a limited amount of glucose (hence the bonking that takes place after two hours), but a fat fueled athlete doesnt have that problem since the amount of fat available for even the scrawniest rider is virtually unlimited, by comparison.

and if what you are saying is true, how in the world did our species manage to get this far, considering that we were exercising a hell of a lot and eating fats and proteins for the first 95% of our existance on this planet.

the plumbing problem is an interesting one. I've heard it argued that we dont actually need fiber, and that eating a lot of carbs is actually damaging to your plumbing... that's why you have problems if you dont eat your grains, your body takes a little time to recuperate and get back to doing what it evolved over time to do, i.e. process meat and fat. I remember being constipated when I started low carbing, and badly constipated at that.. but that went away after a few weeks, never to come back. Not even when I experimented for a little while with just eating eggs and meat, nothing else. Regular as clockwork.


Well it never worked for me because for the longest time I was a carnivoire, and for more than just a few weeks, my life was miserable because of it. I never had any energy and put on weight like crazy I went from 170 to 250 in less than a year being a carnivoire. Now I am less active than I was before, and because I switched to a high fibre diet that utilises food from all the food groups I am much better off. Now I can eat much more than I ever did before and I am losing weight all because I took the focus off of meat and put it on grains vegtables and fruit. I have more energy, feel better than I did before and even my marks are higher at school. Plus my blood pressure has come down and my blood tests are much better. Low carb high fat may work for some but it has not worked for me.

Well it never worked for me because for the longest time I was a carnivoire, and for more than just a few weeks, my life was miserable because of it. I never had any energy and put on weight like crazy I went from 170 to 250 in less than a year being a carnivoire. Now I am less active than I was before, and because I switched to a high fibre diet that utilises food from all the food groups I am much better off. Now I can eat much more than I ever did before and I am losing weight all because I took the focus off of meat and put it on grains vegtables and fruit. I have more energy, feel better than I did before and even my marks are higher at school. Plus my blood pressure has come down and my blood tests are much better. Low carb high fat may work for some but it has not worked for me.


what do you mean when you say you were a carnivore? eating only meat? how much meat? if that's the case, it didnt work for me either, I do much better on about 30 - 40 grams of carbs per day... often less, rarely more...

of course, if you were eating a lot of carbs along with being a carnivore,that's another story altogether... its no suprise you gained wt...

also, you should be aware that your diet using all food groups includes a lot of foods that were not part of our diet for the first 95% of our existance, so, be careful, you are following a fad diet...

I've done a lot of research, and I know how my body gets fuel. It runs on fat, for the most part.

to paraphrase bogey, you've been misinformed. your body is very adept at using fat for fuel (it's does take a few weeks to adjust if you've been eating a lot of carbs). there are several studies out verifying this. this is science, not myth. I'll have to look for it, but there is a study somewhere showing endurance athletes performance actually improved after switching diets (from high carbs to high fat), and training. the training is essential, since it takes some time for your body to switch from burning glucose all the time to burning fat. But once the switchover is complete, you will have turned your fine self into a very efficient fat burning machine. .

As far as athetes are concerned, you're wrong. Otherwise they would do as you suggest, but they don't because fat is a relatively inefficient fuel and glycogen needs to be readily available for many efforts, and some types of efforts that simply can not, absolutely can not use fat (or protein) for fuel.


and think about it, your body can store only a limited amount of glucose (hence the bonking that takes place after two hours), but a fat fueled athlete doesnt have that problem since the amount of fat available for even the scrawniest rider is virtually unlimited, by comparison.

You really need to learn more about exercise physiology. Your body simply won't perform as well on fat alone as it will with glycogen, glucose, and fat together. Bonking won't occur even after 8 hours if you supply enough of the fuel it actually needs to perform.

Provide some proof that a "fat-fueled" athlete can do well in events without ingesting carbs before, and during that event and that they will not bonk. Then call up all the coaches of pro cycling teams and tell them they can stop eating carbs before and during races because you think the riders have enough fat to provide all the fuel they need.

Do a google search and try to find any reputable study showing that a person can fuel their anerobic efforts without glycogen or glucose. While you're at it, find us some links that show the results of good athletes using only fat for fuel and/or ones that do not eat plenty of carbs (sugars) before, during, and after long events. Also find us some links for "fat-fueled" athletes who preform well in events lasting under one hour.


and if what you are saying is true, how in the world did our species manage to get this far, considering that we were exercising a hell of a lot and eating fats and proteins for the first 95% of our existance on this planet.

Farming, hunting, and working in a steel mill is not athletic performance. The fuel needs are different. If you are concerned about merely "surviving" then you can do whatever you want and die at age 45 like most of your ancestors did.

If you want good athletic performance then _you_ need to learn a lot (!) more about what athletes have learned to allow themselves to perform better than they did 5- 10, or 40 years ago. Do you still drink only water during two hour rides? (I assume you do because that's what our ancestors did.) Would you like to read studies that show the performance differences when athletes exercised with plain water versus sports drinks?

Talk to any _good_ cycling coach and ask them if we have learned valuable things about fueling for athletic events during the last 5-10 years? You on the other hand, can feed yourself just like people did 100 years ago and be happy with performances just like we saw 100 years ago.

what do you mean when you say you were a carnivore? eating only meat? how much meat? if that's the case, it didnt work for me either, I do much better on about 30 - 40 grams of carbs per day... often less, rarely more...

of course, if you were eating a lot of carbs along with being a carnivore,that's another story altogether... its no suprise you gained wt...

also, you should be aware that your diet using all food groups includes a lot of foods that were not part of our diet for the first 95% of our existance, so, be careful, you are following a fad diet...

I did not count carbs but it was almost all meat, and saturated fats.

As for not eating from the other food groups civilised people have been eating from all the food groups for hundreds of years, the whole reason we moved out of the country into the cities was because of farming. Some civilaisations lived mailnly on corn, where my ancestors came from they eat lots of beans tomatoes and grains and have been for hundreds of years before the discovery of america. So I dont see how following a diet that my ancestors have been eating for hundreds of years, and almost living to the century mark is a fad diet.

As far as athetes are concerned, you're wrong. Otherwise they would do as you suggest, but they don't because fat is a relatively inefficient fuel and glycogen needs to be readily available for many efforts, and some types of efforts that simply can not, absolutely can not use fat (or protein) for fuel.



You really need to learn more about exercise physiology. Your body simply won't perform as well on fat alone as it will with glycogen, glucose, and fat together. Bonking won't occur even after 8 hours if you supply enough of the fuel it actually needs to perform.

Provide some proof that a "fat-fueled" athlete can do well in events without ingesting carbs before, and during that event and that they will not bonk. Then call up all the coaches of pro cycling teams and tell them they can stop eating carbs before and during races because you think the riders have enough fat to provide all the fuel they need.

Do a google search and try to find any reputable study showing that a person can fuel their anerobic efforts without glycogen or glucose. While you're at it, find us some links that show the results of good athletes using only fat for fuel and/or ones that do not eat plenty of carbs (sugars) before, during, and after long events. Also find us some links for "fat-fueled" athletes who preform well in events lasting under one hour.



Farming, hunting, and working in a steel mill is not athletic performance. The fuel needs are different. If you are concerned about merely "surviving" then you can do whatever you want and die at age 45 like most of your ancestors did.

If you want good athletic performance then _you_ need to learn a lot (!) more about what athletes have learned to allow themselves to perform better than they did 5- 10, or 40 years ago. Do you still drink only water during two hour rides? (I assume you do because that's what our ancestors did.) Would you like to read studies that show the performance differences when athletes exercised with plain water versus sports drinks?

Talk to any _good_ cycling coach and ask them if we have learned valuable things about fueling for athletic events during the last 5-10 years? You on the other hand, can feed yourself just like people did 100 years ago and be happy with performances just like we saw 100 years ago.


gotta run to see a rolling stones concert, so I'll get back to you in more detail... but, for now... the current state of the science indicates that it is a good idea to train on a high fat diet, but consume lots of carbs on race day. you're right, you need carbs for the absolute max. performance.. but by eating fat the rest of the time, you actually train your body to burn glucose slower, meaning it will last longer and be more effective on that precious race day...

as for the ancestor thing, I am talking about our pre-farming history, pre agriculture, when all humans existed in hunter gatherer mode for a long long long looooong time... eating protein and carbs... and if you think adding carbs to the diet led to our current modern longevity, well, I dont know what to say.... I'm thinking its more along the lines of modern plumbing, access to food, lack of nasty beasts trying to kill us, doctors, modern medicine, etc. etc....

I did not count carbs but it was almost all meat, and saturated fats.

As for not eating from the other food groups civilised people have been eating from all the food groups for hundreds of years, the whole reason we moved out of the country into the cities was because of farming. Some civilaisations lived mailnly on corn, where my ancestors came from they eat lots of beans tomatoes and grains and have been for hundreds of years before the discovery of america. So I dont see how following a diet that my ancestors have been eating for hundreds of years, and almost living to the century mark is a fad diet.


well, think of all human existence as a 24 hour period. organized agricuture has existed only for the past 10,000 years, making up only the last five mintues of the entire day. our bodies evolved over the full prior 23 plus hours. we have not had time, evolutionarily speaking, to adapt to a diet as high in sugar/starch that you guys recommend. your body only needs a teaspoon of sugar, you guys are dumping buckets into your systems.

well, think of all human existence as a 24 hour period. organized agricuture has existed only for the past 10,000 years, making up only the last five mintues of the entire day. our bodies evolved over the full prior 23 plus hours. we have not had time, evolutionarily speaking, to adapt to a diet as high in sugar/starch that you guys recommend. your body only needs a teaspoon of sugar, you guys are dumping buckets into your systems.


Well I have tried your way and it does not work, I eat the way my ancestors do and they have been living a life free of heart disease and cancer, whereas the European side of my family does not live nearly as health a life and they live on a low carb diet. And we have evolved since the time of the caveman.

here's an article that explains how they get vitamin C (beluga whale skin)... also casts some doubt on the stomach contents story...

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010119.html

VitC is deffinitely available in raw animal foods and I wasn't saying that they need carbohydrates for vitC. I cant find the article I'm looking for but it had something to do with mineral balance I think. Consuming the contents of the stomach/intestines was pretty normal across the America's. See, http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/native_americans.html

Also I'm a long term advocate of a high fat/protein diet but I DO acknowledge that it's not for everyone. Some of us are geneticaly suited to a high fat/protein diet and some of us are geneticaly suited to a high carbohydrate diet. Just as it's plainly rediculious to put the whole population on a high carb diet the oposite is also true. There's a concept called Metabolic type diet that Dr Mercola promotes that is very enlightening. http://www.mercola.com

Within the concept of metabolic type its still preferable for carbohydrate types to get some fat and protein from healthy, traditional sources. Not this modern man made crap.

Regards, Anthony

When you say things like:

"If you are concerned about merely "surviving" then you can do whatever you want and die at age 45 like most of your ancestors did."

It really makes you appear not to have a clue. You must be one of the misinformed that honestly believes todays diet is better then it was long ago! If that is what you really think, you are absolutely out of your mind!

Have a nice day,

Mike

I think you could lose weight on the Chocolate Cream Pie Diet if you stuck to it. Nothing but Chocolate Cream Pie and water. You'd get so sick of CCP that you'd start eating less and less of it, and you'd end up losing weight. You wouldn't be healthy, but you'd weigh less.

When you say things like:

"If you are concerned about merely "surviving" then you can do whatever you want and die at age 45 like most of your ancestors did."

It really makes you appear not to have a clue. You must be one of the misinformed that honestly believes todays diet is better then it was long ago! If that is what you really think, you are absolutely out of your mind!

Have a nice day,

Mike

Well if you're going tell us to eat like our ancestors to be healthy like them then you have to acknowledge the simple fact that they died at a relatively young age while eating the diet you espouse. Personally, I think the idea of trying to eat like our ancestors is a silly distraction. We have access to lots of good food that our ancestors never had or couldn't get frequently. Do you eat bananas? Did they? How about fresh orange juice no matter what part of the country you live in? 5 different kinds of fresh seafood at the market every day of the year...

You can in fact eat better than your ancestors, if you choose to do that.

Besides, my comments were mostly directed towards a good diet for athletes. That is the focus of this forum, right?

Well if you're going tell us to eat like our ancestors to be healthy like them then you have to acknowledge the simple fact that they died at a relatively young age while eating the diet you espouse. Personally, I think the idea of trying to eat like our ancestors is a silly distraction. We have access to lots of good food that our ancestors never had or couldn't get frequently. Do you eat bananas? Did they? How about fresh orange juice no matter what part of the country you live in? 5 different kinds of fresh seafood at the market every day of the year...

You can in fact eat better than your ancestors, if you choose to do that.

Besides, my comments were mostly directed towards a good diet for athletes. That is the focus of this forum, right?

So... you are suggesting that the main reason our ancestors did not live as long as we live today was because of their diet? are you serious?

gotta run to see a rolling stones concert,
While you're there, check out what the High Heroin, High Alcohol High Nicotine diet has done for Keith Richards. Man looks like a stick of beef jerky playing a guitar. :D