Training & Nutrition - Certified Nutritionalist

The thought of eating like that is incredible to me, it just is. I mean jaw-dropping.

I understand that you're making an effort in order to consume your bell peppers, your broccoli, and your salad. I respect that you are doing this in order to be more healthful. But...I have grown to expect that each meal will be based around a fruit or a vegetable, and I've been known to have dinners incorporating a pound of cooked greens, a cup of legumes, AND four cups or more of tossed salad. In comparison, your side dishes just don't seem like much.

... yet eat like you do and think *that's* healthy. I find it very, very hard to believe, *particularly* of the population of this cycling training board.


holy fiber batman, talk about jaw dropping, that's almost 500 grams of carbs in one meal alone.... have you heard of insulin? have you had your blood sugar checked? I worry about you...

Well its your body, you can do to it what ever you please. But if your trying to lose weight, and increase exercise, with a target result of becoming healthier than you are today.......I'd rethink or research more the deep fried parts :)

I'm not a fan of "deep frying" myself. Refined vegetable oils with there damaged/hydrogenated/transfats are realy bad news and I'm an advocate of animal fats anyway. Not refined vegetable oils. Maybe you could find yourself some beef tallow for the deep fryer and use in moderation but gently shallow frying in butter/ghee or lard is tastier anyway as well as being healthier.

Regards, Anthony

holy fiber batman, talk about jaw dropping, that's almost 500 grams of carbs in one meal alone.... have you heard of insulin? have you had your blood sugar checked? I worry about you...

Where are you getting your information? According to the USDA Nutrient database, 1 lb. of Swiss chard and 1 c. of garbanzo beans is 71 g carbo, of which 18 g is fiber. 1 lb. of kale and 1 c. of lentils is about 85 g carbo, including 25 g fiber. That's about 53% of calories as carbs in the case of the lentils and kale meal -- and an extremely filling and tasty 450 calorie dinner, I might add, with a buttload of calcium, iron, vitamin C, potassium, vitamin K, B vitamins...

Ignore mrfreddy. He's annoying and ill-informed, but harmless.

Ignore mrfreddy. He's annoying and ill-informed, but harmless.

gosh, that's the thanks I get? I serve up scientifcally based factual information, supported by dozens of studies, and all I get in return is insults!

anyway, tonight I decided to test out my sprinting ability, hobbled as I am by a lack of glucose on my system ( I probably ate less carbs all week than alison in a single meal....). after an hour swimming at a slow steady pace, I did a few 50 yard sprints. Now, when I was a wee lad of 15 or so, I was a year round swimmer, and I think the best I ever did was 28 seconds. Now, out of shape and knockin on 50 years old, and after a full hour non stop in the pool, I timed myself at 36 seconds. Now, maybe if I'd had a bag of donuts I could have done it in 35 seconds, but, you know, who cares?

mrfreddy,

You have my vote!!!
mike

Where are you getting your information? According to the USDA Nutrient database, 1 lb. of Swiss chard and 1 c. of garbanzo beans is 71 g carbo, of which 18 g is fiber. 1 lb. of kale and 1 c. of lentils is about 85 g carbo, including 25 g fiber. That's about 53% of calories as carbs in the case of the lentils and kale meal -- and an extremely filling and tasty 450 calorie dinner, I might add, with a buttload of calcium, iron, vitamin C, potassium, vitamin K, B vitamins...

my mistake, and what a whopper, sorry, I read the calorie column, not the carbs (was in a hurry to get to the pool)....

still that's close to 100 g. carbs in one meal, do that 3x per day, still a lot of carbs... do you realize that's the equivalent in one day to more than one cup of sugar? of course, it's released slightly more slowly than the sugar, but still.. you know you can get all that your body needs without all that sugar, if you can just get past that fat phobia you seemed to have bought into... btw, I think a lot of the vitamins you named are fat soluble, and wont do you much good, unless you, you know, eat some fat along with them...

do that 3x per day

Why should I have dinner 3 x per day?


still a lot of carbs...

Yes. Yes it is. I believe I've already mentioned that I strive for 50% of calories as carbo when I'm not training so hard (like now), and more like 60% when I am training to race.


if you can just get past that fat phobia you seemed to have bought into...

Who's fat phobic? I get probably 30-40% of calories as fat. Mostly unsaturated, but I'm a cheese fiend, and anyway this last couple of weeks have been an orgy of steak and pork sausage -- I think I've got enough dietary saturated fat to last me a lifetime. :rolleyes:


btw, I think a lot of the vitamins you named are fat soluble

You *think*. This is your expert scientific opinion? I named three minerals, two vitamins, and one complex of vitamins. Of them, Vitamin K is fat-soluble. Considering my pound of kale (an infrequent treat) contains about 46,000% of the USRDA of K, I think it's OK if the olive oil (and maybe coconut milk, yum!) that I consume it with is insufficient to efficiently carry it all into my blood stream. ;)

Why should I have dinner 3 x per day?



Yes. Yes it is. I believe I've already mentioned that I strive for 50% of calories as carbo when I'm not training so hard (like now), and more like 60% when I am training to race.



Who's fat phobic? I get probably 30-40% of calories as fat. Mostly unsaturated, but I'm a cheese fiend, and anyway this last couple of weeks have been an orgy of steak and pork sausage -- I think I've got enough dietary saturated fat to last me a lifetime. :roll:



You *think*. This is your expert scientific opinion? I named three minerals, two vitamins, and one complex of vitamins. Of them, Vitamin K is fat-soluble. Considering my pound of kale (an infrequent treat) contains about 46,000% of the USRDA of K, I think it's OK if the olive oil (and maybe coconut milk, yum!) that I consume it with is insufficient to efficiently carry it all into my blood stream. ;)


oh, ok... nevermind then.... personally I'd advise a lot more fat, including sat. fat, a lot more often, and a lot less carbs but hey, do what you like...

Mike, keep up the good work, you're doing fantastic! btw, you're menu sounds pretty similar to mine.

since we're talkin vitamins, here's what fitday.com thinks is in one of my typical daily food (2500 calories of eggs, bacon, cheese, steak (12oz), salmon (12oz), broccoli, butter):

a little short in vit. d, k, magnesium, potassium (need supplements, I guess) and sodium (not true, I didnt record the salt...)

Fat-Soluble Vitamins
Nutrient Units % RDA
Vitamin A mcg_RE 224.11
Vitamin D mcg 13.06
Vitamin E mg_ATE 183.39
Vitamin K mcg 7.72

Water-Soluble Vitamins
Nutrient Units I% RDA
Vitamin C mg 658.87
Thiamin mg 143.08
Riboflavin mg 206.5
Vitamin B-6 mg 239.52
Vitamin B-12 mcg 779.85
Niacin mg 289.42
Folate mcg 164.62

Trace Minerals
Nutrient Units % RDA
Iron mg 171.92
Zinc mg 155.26
Selenium mcg 452.39
Copper mg 0.931 --- ---

Major Minerals
Nutrient Units % RDA
Calcium mg 101.59
Phosphorus mg 379.93
Magnesium mg 74.75
Sodium mg 4368.4 --- ---
Potassium

since we're talkin vitamins, here's what fitday.com thinks is in one of my typical daily food (2500 calories of eggs, bacon, cheese, steak (12oz), salmon (12oz), broccoli, butter)

Phytonutrients and other plant-based health-producing factors track roughly with folate (USRDA 400ug). You're pretty deficient in my book. A multivitamin/multimineral supplement is a good idea regardless though. (I take one with excess B vitamins, just to hedge my bets, and I've just bumped my calcium up to over 800 mg from supplements even though I get several servings' worth of calcium-containing or fortified foods on a typical day.)

Waitaminnit. Dear god, man, did I read that right? 172 mg of iron? Crap, better add a chelator to your supplement routine! :eek: Seriously. Google (http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1189.htm) "iron carcinogenesis" or run it through Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16430879&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum). You're combining an excess consumption (10 x USRDA) of *oxidative* free radicals with a marked deficiency of *antioxidants*. Not something that causes short-term issues, but something that could, potentially, trigger life-threatening chronic illness. I know you're going to come back with your whole carbs-insulin-diabetes schtick, but that is just not as conclusive to me as the oxidative stress link with cancer. :(

We've been talking about why Lance Armstrong eats a high-carbo diet for performance. What we haven't really touched on is that he is also eating the diet of a cancer survivor. http://www.cancerproject.org/

Anyway, best wishes. I'm glad that you are able to continue to meet your physical goals. If you're ever in the neighborhood, c'mon out with the Square Wheels. I'd say half our members are in the circa-sixty cohort, and they all kick my ass regularly. :D

"an orgy of steak and pork sausage"

Your making me feel uncomfortable!!!

LOL :eek:

"an orgy of steak and pork sausage"

Your making me feel uncomfortable!!!

LOL :eek:

:lol:

Phytonutrients and other plant-based health-producing factors track roughly with folate (USRDA 400ug). You're pretty deficient in my book. A multivitamin/multimineral supplement is a good idea regardless though. (I take one with excess B vitamins, just to hedge my bets, and I've just bumped my calcium up to over 800 mg from supplements even though I get several servings' worth of calcium-containing or fortified foods on a typical day.)

Waitaminnit. Dear god, man, did I read that right? 172 mg of iron? Crap, better add a chelator to your supplement routine! :eek: Seriously. Google (http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1189.htm) "iron carcinogenesis" or run it through Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16430879&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum). You're combining an excess consumption (10 x USRDA) of *oxidative* free radicals with a marked deficiency of *antioxidants*. Not something that causes short-term issues, but something that could, potentially, trigger life-threatening chronic illness. I know you're going to come back with your whole carbs-insulin-diabetes schtick, but that is just not as conclusive to me as the oxidative stress link with cancer. :(

We've been talking about why Lance Armstrong eats a high-carbo diet for performance. What we haven't really touched on is that he is also eating the diet of a cancer survivor. http://www.cancerproject.org/

Anyway, best wishes. I'm glad that you are able to continue to meet your physical goals. If you're ever in the neighborhood, c'mon out with the Square Wheels. I'd say half our members are in the circa-sixty cohort, and they all kick my ass regularly. :D


ok, ok, I'll do some homework on that folate/iron/anti-oxidative business...

I like how you dismiss the carbs-insulin-diabetes as "schtick" it's not, it's quite serious, and quite real.

and yes, there are a lot of cancer survivors who go for the pc solutions, and I cant say I blame them. if I went thru a big cancer scare, I doubt that I would take on a radical diet, or one that is considered radical by the mainstream anyway.

one last comment, do you know the compositional make-up of mothers milk? 50% FAT, a lot of that is saturated fat, the other 50% are carbs and proteins (I forget the exact figure). so, you know, if mother nature thought that was good for growing babies, I'm pretty sure it'll do me no harm...

Phytonutrients and other plant-based health-producing factors track roughly with folate (USRDA 400ug). You're pretty deficient in my book. A multivitamin/multimineral supplement is a good idea regardless though. (I take one with excess B vitamins, just to hedge my bets, and I've just bumped my calcium up to over 800 mg from supplements even though I get several servings' worth of calcium-containing or fortified foods on a typical day.)

Waitaminnit. Dear god, man, did I read that right? 172 mg of iron? Crap, better add a chelator to your supplement routine! :eek: Seriously. Google (http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1189.htm) "iron carcinogenesis" or run it through Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16430879&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum). You're combining an excess consumption (10 x USRDA) of *oxidative* free radicals with a marked deficiency of *antioxidants*. Not something that causes short-term issues, but something that could, potentially, trigger life-threatening chronic illness. I know you're going to come back with your whole carbs-insulin-diabetes schtick, but that is just not as conclusive to me as the oxidative stress link with cancer. :(

We've been talking about why Lance Armstrong eats a high-carbo diet for performance. What we haven't really touched on is that he is also eating the diet of a cancer survivor. http://www.cancerproject.org/

Anyway, best wishes. I'm glad that you are able to continue to meet your physical goals. If you're ever in the neighborhood, c'mon out with the Square Wheels. I'd say half our members are in the circa-sixty cohort, and they all kick my ass regularly. :D


oh yeah, I forgot to add that I do eat fruit from time to time, berries, half banana, etc.

Phytonutrients and other plant-based health-producing factors track roughly with folate (USRDA 400ug). You're pretty deficient in my book. A multivitamin/multimineral supplement is a good idea regardless though. (I take one with excess B vitamins, just to hedge my bets, and I've just bumped my calcium up to over 800 mg from supplements even though I get several servings' worth of calcium-containing or fortified foods on a typical day.)

Waitaminnit. Dear god, man, did I read that right? 172 mg of iron? Crap, better add a chelator to your supplement routine! :eek: Seriously. Google (http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1189.htm) "iron carcinogenesis" or run it through Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16430879&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum). You're combining an excess consumption (10 x USRDA) of *oxidative* free radicals with a marked deficiency of *antioxidants*. Not something that causes short-term issues, but something that could, potentially, trigger life-threatening chronic illness. I know you're going to come back with your whole carbs-insulin-diabetes schtick, but that is just not as conclusive to me as the oxidative stress link with cancer. :(

We've been talking about why Lance Armstrong eats a high-carbo diet for performance. What we haven't really touched on is that he is also eating the diet of a cancer survivor. http://www.cancerproject.org/

Anyway, best wishes. I'm glad that you are able to continue to meet your physical goals. If you're ever in the neighborhood, c'mon out with the Square Wheels. I'd say half our members are in the circa-sixty cohort, and they all kick my ass regularly. :D


the iron is 172% of RDA.... not 172mg....

ok, ok, I'll do some homework on that folate/iron/anti-oxidative business...

Cool, it's all I ask. :) Berries are awesome, antioxidant powerhouses.

I should have recognized that 170+ mg of iron wasn't possible, but exceeding the USRDA by any amount is still a red flag. Remember that iron sticks around in the body and is difficult to clear. Women need to supplement because they bleed regularly, but most men hardly need the USRDA unless they sweat a LOT or have occult blood loss in the stool.


I like how you dismiss the carbs-insulin-diabetes as "schtick" it's not, it's quite serious, and quite real.

By "schtick" I meant the melodramatic routine you've gone through a few times here. I wasn't interested when you first posted your link-dump, but I'll read back. In the meantime though, I will state that while I recognize that extreme measures might well be necessary in *existing* diabetes or obesity, I do *not* see evidence for dietary carbohydrate as a risk factor in the *development* of type 2 diabetes. This abstract, part of a paper from the Endocrinology, Diabetes and Clinical Nutrition dept. at OHSU, sums it up:

"Since the dawn of civilization, carbohydrate has comprised the largest source of energy in the diet for most populations. The source of the carbohydrate has been from plants in the form of complex carbohydrate high in fiber. Only in affluent cultures has sugar contributed so much of the total energy. When carbohydrate is consumed as a major component of a plant-based diet, a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet is associated with low plasma levels of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, less coronary heart disease, less diabetes, and less obesity. Very low-carbohydrate (ketogenic) diets may provide short-term solutions but do not lead to a long-term solution for most people."


one last comment, do you know the compositional make-up of mothers milk? 50% FAT, a lot of that is saturated fat, the other 50% are carbs and proteins (I forget the exact figure). so, you know, if mother nature thought that was good for growing babies, I'm pretty sure it'll do me no harm...

And that's for a being that will double its body weight in six months. Is that your goal? :) (About 5% of calories in breastmilk are from protein, and about 40% from carbohydrate. Does that mimic your intake, too?)

Cool, it's all I ask. :) Berries are awesome, antioxidant powerhouses.

I should have recognized that 170+ mg of iron wasn't possible, but exceeding the USRDA by any amount is still a red flag. Remember that iron sticks around in the body and is difficult to clear. Women need to supplement because they bleed regularly, but most men hardly need the USRDA unless they sweat a LOT or have occult blood loss in the stool.



well I guess I should research this some more, but I cant see why it would be a problem when you're eating whole foods... btw, I wasnt able to plug in the grass fed beef that I normally eat,so the figures are off somewhat... dont know if that affects the iron? anyway, that nutcase Mercola recommends donating blood twice a year to lower iron levels, no harm in that I suppose.




By "schtick" I meant the melodramatic routine you've gone through a few times here. I wasn't interested when you first posted your link-dump, but I'll read back.

melodrama??? just presenting the case to a difficult audience, ha ha...



In the meantime though, I will state that while I recognize that extreme measures might well be necessary in *existing* diabetes or obesity, I do *not* see evidence for dietary carbohydrate as a risk factor in the *development* of type 2 diabetes.

it's a pretty good guess that refined carbs and sugar play a huge role, seeing as how the rise in diabetes coincides with the rise of consumption of said refined carbs and sugar...



This abstract, part of a paper from the Endocrinology, Diabetes and Clinical Nutrition dept. at OHSU, sums it up:
"Since the dawn of civilization, carbohydrate has comprised the largest source of energy in the diet for most populations. The source of the carbohydrate has been from plants in the form of complex carbohydrate high in fiber. Only in affluent cultures has sugar contributed so much of the total energy. When carbohydrate is consumed as a major component of a plant-based diet, a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet is associated with low plasma levels of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, less coronary heart disease, less diabetes, and less obesity. Very low-carbohydrate (ketogenic) diets may provide short-term solutions but do not lead to a long-term solution for most people."

this starts off with a dubious contention and then just dissovles into pure opinion... wrapped around pure falsehoods, ha haa... first off, there is a lot of contention about what we ate prehistorically, which matters a lot more than what we ate since the "dawn of civilization" (which I take to mean the beginning of organized agriculutre 10k years ago, a mear blip on the evolutionary time scale). PC researchers want to believe humans foraged all day at the savannah salad bar and only ate lean wild animals... there is loads of evidence that we ate as much sat. fat as we could, and that was a lot. about the sugar/affluent countries, i think it's actually true that,today anyway, it's the rich countries that eat high quality meat, it's the poor that are stuck with rice and beans.

and why cant a low carb diet be a long term solution? that is just somebody's opion. I've been eating this way for almost 4 years, I see no reason to stop. sure, lots of people try it and fail, but I blame a lot of that on the nonsense spread around in the media about low carb diets.


And that's for a being that will double its body weight in six months. Is that your goal? :) (About 5% of calories in breastmilk are from protein, and about 40% from carbohydrate. Does that mimic your intake, too?)

I knew someone would say something along those lines... but aren't growth factors considered a good thing for an athlete, especially for 50 plus athletes?

as for my typical daily intake, according to fitday anyway, it's 55% fats (23% sat. 6% poly, 20% mono), 36% protein, 8% carbs...

sorry to go on and on about this, but this part just grabbed my attention.


low-fat diet is associated with low plasma levels of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, less coronary heart disease, less diabetes, and less obesity.

this is what pc nutritional authorities want to believe, however, it may shock you to know that there is no evidence supporting this case. an enormous fraud has been perpetrated on the public over the past 40 years, based on very very little evidence. if you don't believe me, google "gary taubes" "big fat lie" or go to theomnivore.com, read his articles on sat. fat, go to westonprice.com (org?), google "cholestoral skeptics" and on and on....

Im always open to other opinions, so i went to theomnivore.com. Tried to use the link there for Gary Taubes. Doesnt work. So off to google i go.
With this as the result:
http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.mf.big.shtml

it may shock you to know that there is no evidence supporting this case. an enormous fraud has been perpetrated on the public over the past 40 years, based on very very little evidence.

Off with the blinders, friend. Ornish's extremely low-fat approach is in the literature as having significant effect against everything from heart disease to cancer.

Ornish? talk about a diet that's hard to maintin for the long term.

also, he has only proved that his diet, in COMBINATION with exercise and meditation, has an impact on lowering cholestoral (which in itself has very little to do with heart disease). Despite his claims, he has not isolated the diet itself as a causative agent. So yes, if you eat extreme low fat, go hungry the rest of your life, meditate (to try to forget how hungry you are), and exercise a lot, you can reverse heart disease, or a least reverse some unreliable indicators of heart disease.

me, I'd rather eat well and exercise, thank you!

Im always open to other opinions, so i went to theomnivore.com. Tried to use the link there for Gary Taubes. Doesnt work. So off to google i go.
With this as the result:
http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.mf.big.shtml

well, you can believe fumento's histrionic distortions, or you can peruse the well-reasoned arguments below:

The Cholesterol Myths (condensed version of Dr. Uffe Ravnskov's book)

http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

The Soft Science of Dietary Fat by Gary Taubes,published in "Science"

http://nasw.org/mem-maint/awards/The%20soft%20science.pdf "

"big fat lie" published in NY Times Magazine

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1726

Off with the blinders, friend. Ornish's extremely low-fat approach is in the literature as having significant effect against everything from heart disease to cancer.

read all about Ornish, scroll toward to the bottom to read about his "proof"

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

Ornish? talk about a diet that's hard to maintin for the long term.

Difficult? Sure! Not appropriate for the general public? Probably not. But "associated with low plasma levels of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, less coronary heart disease, less diabetes, and less obesity"? Yup. IT'S IN THE LITERATURE. Peer-reviewed, methodology and bias exposed. Studies have been done to control for fat content of the diet. They're not as effective as the whole Ornish approach in managing disease, but restricting fat does have an effect.

Here's a quote from Ornish in May of 2004. "The debate should not focus only on low carbohydrate versus low fat. Patients have a spectrum of dietary choices. To the degree that they reduce their intake of refined carbohydrates and excessive fats and increase their intake of unrefined carbohydrates (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes) and sufficient omega-3 fatty acids, they may feel better, lose weight, and gain health."

Doesn't sound too extremist to me, but maybe that's just cuz I've been brainwashed by the PC hoardes. :)

well, you can believe fumento's histrionic distortions, or you can peruse the well-reasoned arguments below:
"big fat lie" published in NY Times Magazine

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1726

See, this is what i been saying all long. The web is full of both sides of the argument. You keep pointing to "big fat lie". Have you searched lately? There is literaly 100 websites devoted to how he quoted out of context many of the people he uses to make his point. The folks he used to make his point totally furious with him in his way to rework their statements to do 180 degrees from what they beleive in order to support his personal views.

Histrionic distortions?

ya thats someone who I want to use as a reference and believe.

Im open to most everything. But i also dont beleive everything i read just because its in print on the internet. You seem to be very selective in the evidence you use. Even your diet, of 8% carbs, is contrary to many of the sites that promote the very things you do.
http://www.jigsawhealth.com/articles/saturated_unsaturated_fat.html
They also promote saturated fats, but even they recognize that balance, somewhere around 40/30/30 carb/fat/prot is healthiest compared to either a low fat or low carb.

Re research your own sources. I had never heard of Gary Taubes untill you mentioned to 'google' him. I went looking with no pre conceived ideas. And my conclusion is he's a fraud. well maybe not a fraud, but someone with an agenda and will twist the truth and stats enough to prove his agenda. And thats the opnion of the very people he interviewed and quoted in his articles to make his own points.

I'll keep to my own conclusion, and that of say the Harvard site I linked, and even the above jigsawhealth link and keep to a balanced diet. Exact numbers, be they 40/30/30, or 50/30/20 are not critical, but they give a good range to shoot for.

The only thing still 'in the air' and unproven to me about a balanced diet, and all the fact/fiction regarding fats and cholesteral is saturated fat. To me this is the only area that needs definate studies. Ive read a crap load of sites that point to studies saying it should be reduced (not eliminated) and a couple sites saying its fine. Most sites that say its fine seem to ones pushing an agenda.

heck even your touted Mr Taubes has some interesting things about it you may have missed .
"" While some manipulations in his writing seem very carefully calculated - e.g., waiting until the next-to-last paragraph to include three major bombshells (that he is on the diet himself, that overconsumption of saturated fat can indeed shorten lifespan, and that "Atkins had suffered with heart troubles of his own")""

So i'll keep to a balanced diet, and a reduced sat fat intake. And maybe sometime before im dead they will have a definitive idea about sat fats.

Here's another Harvard article of interest. It deals with how various ideas on health and nutrition are adopted and how knowledge is constantly changing:

Harvard School of Public Health - Research and the Mass Media--An Introduction (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/media.html)

Basically there's no one "right" way for anything. Simply probabilities, tendencies and their correlation with results. The link Jarery posted to the Harvard site is pretty comprehensive and is a good starting point to giving long term and permanent results for the largest numbers of people. Sure, in a small niche group, you can get out-of-the-ordinary results, but these tend to be the folks on fad-diets who have constant yo-yo and roller-coaster effects with their weight & health. You want to focus on long-term and permanent results, and it often requires changing your lifestyle and mindset.

Difficult? Sure! Not appropriate for the general public? Probably not. But "associated with low plasma levels of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, less coronary heart disease, less diabetes, and less obesity"? Yup. IT'S IN THE LITERATURE. Peer-reviewed, methodology and bias exposed. Studies have been done to control for fat content of the diet. They're not as effective as the whole Ornish approach in managing disease, but restricting fat does have an effect.

Here's a quote from Ornish in May of 2004. "The debate should not focus only on low carbohydrate versus low fat. Patients have a spectrum of dietary choices. To the degree that they reduce their intake of refined carbohydrates and excessive fats and increase their intake of unrefined carbohydrates (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes) and sufficient omega-3 fatty acids, they may feel better, lose weight, and gain health."

Doesn't sound too extremist to me, but maybe that's just cuz I've been brainwashed by the PC hoardes. :)

well, I can see you and Jarey aren't giving up your biases anytime soon. there is a load of rubbish that gets thru the peer-reivew process, so there goes that... Ornish makes a lot of claims but fails to back any of it up. Did you read A. Colpo's take on him? once you get past Anthony's tone, he has a lot of valid criticisms. One of which is that Ornish cannot claim that reducing fats has any benefits.

See, this is what i been saying all long. The web is full of both sides of the argument. You keep pointing to "big fat lie". Have you searched lately? There is literaly 100 websites devoted to how he quoted out of context many of the people he uses to make his point. The folks he used to make his point totally furious with him in his way to rework their statements to do 180 degrees from what they beleive in order to support his personal views.

Histrionic distortions?

ya thats someone who I want to use as a reference and believe.

Im open to most everything. But i also dont beleive everything i read just because its in print on the internet. You seem to be very selective in the evidence you use. Even your diet, of 8% carbs, is contrary to many of the sites that promote the very things you do.
http://www.jigsawhealth.com/articles/saturated_unsaturated_fat.html
They also promote saturated fats, but even they recognize that balance, somewhere around 40/30/30 carb/fat/prot is healthiest compared to either a low fat or low carb.

Re research your own sources. I had never heard of Gary Taubes untill you mentioned to 'google' him. I went looking with no pre conceived ideas. And my conclusion is he's a fraud. well maybe not a fraud, but someone with an agenda and will twist the truth and stats enough to prove his agenda. And thats the opnion of the very people he interviewed and quoted in his articles to make his own points.

I'll keep to my own conclusion, and that of say the Harvard site I linked, and even the above jigsawhealth link and keep to a balanced diet. Exact numbers, be they 40/30/30, or 50/30/20 are not critical, but they give a good range to shoot for.

The only thing still 'in the air' and unproven to me about a balanced diet, and all the fact/fiction regarding fats and cholesteral is saturated fat. To me this is the only area that needs definate studies. Ive read a crap load of sites that point to studies saying it should be reduced (not eliminated) and a couple sites saying its fine. Most sites that say its fine seem to ones pushing an agenda.

heck even your touted Mr Taubes has some interesting things about it you may have missed .
"" While some manipulations in his writing seem very carefully calculated - e.g., waiting until the next-to-last paragraph to include three major bombshells (that he is on the diet himself, that overconsumption of saturated fat can indeed shorten lifespan, and that "Atkins had suffered with heart troubles of his own")""

So i'll keep to a balanced diet, and a reduced sat fat intake. And maybe sometime before im dead they will have a definitive idea about sat fats.


you never heard of taubes? his article in the NY Times is what kicked off the whole low carb "craze." and fumento and co. can nitpick about irrelevant details, but the gist of taube's articles hold up (whether his interviewee's like it or not) - that the entire theory that fats are bad and should be restricted is based on extremely flimsy, even non-existant science. this has been borne out again and again,test after test, including tests created and designed to prove the opposite. Unfortunately, there are a LOT of people who have been duped by the low fat mantra, and a lot of people who have based their careers on it, so how can they turn around on a dime and admit they were wrong? they cant.

anyway, eat what you want, but you really need to knock off the attacks on people who do try low carb, you are on very thin ice, science wise, when you do.

*sigh* I've been having fun with this, but I'm really not in the mood to run around defending a super-lowfat diet that has no application to a person of my health status. Sure. Exercise, weight loss, and antioxidants could very well take the claim for Ornish's results. Point is, he's got the only results that are as good as surgical treatment of coronary heart disease -- and he's got some good results on quality of life with prostate cancer, too.

Here, check this out though, pretty cool survey of diet, cholestrol, and heart disease: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16389340

*sigh* I've been having fun with this, but I'm really not in the mood to run around defending a super-lowfat diet that has no application to a person of my health status. Sure. Exercise, weight loss, and antioxidants could very well take the claim for Ornish's results. Point is, he's got the only results that are as good as surgical treatment of coronary heart disease -- and he's got some good results on quality of life with prostate cancer, too.

Here, check this out though, pretty cool survey of diet, cholestrol, and heart disease: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16389340

not really, he only claims to have results. btw, he IS a rabid animal rights PCRM/PETA nutcase. so I take his claims with a grain of salt over some savory filet mignon...

anyway, eat what you want, but you really need to knock off the attacks on people who do try low carb, you are on very thin ice, science wise, when you do.

A balanced diet is on thin ice science wise ?
I also dont think I attacked anyone on low carb. Didnt this thread get started by low carb people saying everyone else was wrong ?
You crack me up, dont forget to put your nike's on before the comet gets close :D

A balanced diet is on thin ice science wise ?
I also dont think I attacked anyone on low carb. Didnt this thread get started by low carb people saying everyone else was wrong ?
You crack me up, dont forget to put your nike's on before the comet gets close :D

sorry, jarey, wasnt referring to you, but a lot of knuckleheads have felt free to drop in and take potshots..

about the so called "balanced" diet? why is that a magical formula? where did that come from? remember, you dont need carbs at all to survive, but you absolutely need fats and protein. also remember, humans evolved over the eons on a very different balance, due to far fewer carbs being available to us for the first 99% of our existance on the planet. and during that time, grains, soy, etc. were unavailable, because they are poisonous in their unprocessed forms.

some people like to argue that lifespans were shorter, but if you really thing our longer lifespans are due to increased carb consumption, I know some nice folks who'd like to talk to you about real estate opportunities over the East river here in NYC...

Balanced comes from many places. Like the other thread where kids left to their own devices automatically eat a 'balanced' diet over time.

Sites that dont have an agenda to push, like the Harvard site I linked. Did you read it? To me thats a site that has no other agenda than to get people healthy. They go with current science at the time, they change when they prove they need to, like in abondoning the low fat theory when further evidence shows it wrong. THey dont stick with wrong statements just because they refuse to show they were wrong.

Harvard site is probably my mainstay for guidance. Even the jigsaw site which is highly favorible to the Weston Price way of thinking promotes a balanced diet.

Saying a body doesnt need carbs is baloney. A body doesnt need to get out of bed, and can live a long life in a coma being fed intravenously. Doesnt make it the 'right' way. Carbs, fat and protein, are all needed, in my opinion.

Using the 'how we were in caveman times' argument is very hollow to me also. Why? Because I dont live in an unheated cave on a hill and eat raw dinasour, or whatever they ate. The whole world and humans have evolved. If you think that there hasnt bene time for humans to evolve, then how come were taller now ?

As i said, to me pretty much all science and studies points to a balanced diet as being the healthiest choice. Jury is still out on saturated fat though.

Read the harvard site, it may open your eyes as much as some of your links have opened mine. Although I've never been one to go for 'new'. I skipped the low fat craze, and i skipped the low carb faze.

The only 'new' fad dietary wisdom I've not discounted is glycemic load. Thats one I beleive has merit. And in the next 5 years I'm sure lots of 'for' and 'against' will come out.

Balanced comes from many places. Like the other thread where kids left to their own devices automatically eat a 'balanced' diet over time.

sorry, you gotta understand we low carb folks hear this "balanced" mantra all the time. all it means to me is more carbs/sugar than I want to put into my body. guess it all boils down to how you feel about running your body on fat versus glucose.


Sites that dont have an agenda to push, like the Harvard site I linked. Did you read it? To me thats a site that has no other agenda than to get people healthy. They go with current science at the time, they change when they prove they need to, like in abondoning the low fat theory when further evidence shows it wrong. THey dont stick with wrong statements just because they refuse to show they were wrong.

Harvard site is probably my mainstay for guidance. Even the jigsaw site which is highly favorible to the Weston Price way of thinking promotes a balanced diet.

it may take some institutions a while to realize the errors of their ways. if they say sat. fats are bad for you and that you need for some reason to eat 30% carbs, I say show the evidence!


Saying a body doesnt need carbs is baloney. A body doesnt need to get out of bed, and can live a long life in a coma being fed intravenously. Doesnt make it the 'right' way. Carbs, fat and protein, are all needed, in my opinion.

as long as you realize that is just your opinion. but the facts still stand, and have been proven again and again. you dont need carbs. we can derive a lot of benefits from carbs, but you do not need them to survive. try not eating proteins and fats for a while, see how long you last.


Using the 'how we were in caveman times' argument is very hollow to me also. Why? Because I dont live in an unheated cave on a hill and eat raw dinasour, or whatever they ate. The whole world and humans have evolved. If you think that there hasnt bene time for humans to evolve, then how come were taller now ?

again, scientists tell us we have only gone thru some very very minor evolutionary changes in the pas 10,000 years. there hasnt been enough time. your metabollic processes are the same as your pre-agriculture cave man ancestor, a product of millions of years of evolution.


As i said, to me pretty much all science and studies points to a balanced diet as being the healthiest choice. Jury is still out on saturated fat though.

there's that balanced word again, ha haa


Read the harvard site, it may open your eyes as much as some of your links have opened mine. Although I've never been one to go for 'new'. I skipped the low fat craze, and i skipped the low carb faze.

ok. I've read some of it, I'll take another look.


The only 'new' fad dietary wisdom I've not discounted is glycemic load. Thats one I beleive has merit. And in the next 5 years I'm sure lots of 'for' and 'against' will come out.


in my opinion, glycemic load is just a pc watered down version of low carbing.. once the pc crowd realized they couldnt fight low carb on the merits, they decided to stick to the fear of sat. fats and come up with a semi-low-carb-eat-just-lean-meats-but-sat.-fats-are-still-the-devil type of plan. it admits that sugar and insulin are indeed a problem, but wont face the fact that sat. fats are not a problem. just my opinion tho...

once the pc crowd realized they couldnt fight low carb on the merits, they decided to stick to the fear of sat. fats and come up with a semi-low-carb-eat-just-lean-meats-but-sat.-fats-are-still-the-devil type of plan. it admits that sugar and insulin are indeed a problem, but wont face the fact that sat. fats are not a problem. just my opinion tho...

Wow, you got comprehension isssues dude.

You want evidence that balanced is better than a fad diet?
Im not overweight, you are.

Wow, you got comprehension isssues dude.

You want evidence that balanced is better than a fad diet?
Im not overweight, you are.


I started to respond to this rubbish, but no, I think not....

How about...

I was overweight, I'm now not overweight, I did it (and continue to do it) with a balanced diet and feel better than I ever did in over 30 years.

Of course, being a mutant has its advantages :o

It amazes me how some of you are so tied up in your emotions on this subject that you can not even read and comprehend an entry... In my posting giving some examples of what I eat, what exactly led you to believe that I eat deep fried meat at every meal? What in the world led you to believe that there are "no vegetables to speak of?"

If you have a reading disability, I appologize in advance.

Mike

The only person who sounds like they're being overly emotional is you. You sound like a petulant little girl who's whining because folks don't agree with you. Poor thing. Maybe you should take that focus and work on increasing your speed. That oughta keep you occupied.

Koffee

The only person who sounds like they're being overly emotional is you. You sound like a petulant little girl who's whining because folks don't agree with you. Poor thing. Maybe you should take that focus and work on increasing your speed. That oughta keep you occupied.

Koffee


Koffee,

I must admit you are one of a kind... here you go resorting to name calling... feel better? Did they teach you this in your certified Nutritionist class?? LMAO!!! :D

Now really, who here is the whiny little girl????

I started to respond to this rubbish, but no, I think not....

Rubbish is asking for proof, then when its placed in front of you, discounting it as pc mantra.
Rubbish is beleiving a geek with a blog over the harvard medical department
Rubbish is spending 4 years 'low carbing it' and still having a weight problem then telling everyone else who successfully defeated their weight problem, that they are doing it wrong.
Rubbish is only beleiving 'studies' when all you need for proof is a mirror.

Face it, you been low carbing for 4 years, and you stated your still overweight, either you or your diet choice is a failure. I'll let you pick which it is.

Edit : To everyone else who chooses low carb diet to lose weight, go for it. Whatever works for you is good. I just disagree with all the "everyone else is wrong crap"

Face it, you been low carbing for 4 years, and you stated your still overweight, either you or your diet choice is a failure. I'll let you pick which it is.
"Colpo says that weight loss is about calorie deficit, no matter what type of diet is followed.
http://www.theomnivore.com/calories_do_count_baby.html

Koffee,

I must admit you are one of a kind... here you go resorting to name calling... feel better? Did they teach you this in your certified Nutritionist class?? LMAO!!! :D

Now really, who here is the whiny little girl????

You are.

Koffee

You are.

Koffee


LOL

I know you are but what am I? :D

Koffee,

I know that you really are a good person. I think it is safe to say that we will not agree much on the whole low carb thing... All I ask is that you keep your eyes open to new possabilities. Don't approach people with the "I am a certified nutritionalist so I know my **** and you don't... and you are doing everything wrong, and you are going to fail." There is no doubt that you know more than me when it comes to general nutrition. Don't let that fact make you ignorant to new studies and research that may show that some of the basic principles you believe in could be less than 100% accurate.

Low carb diets work for some people. There are plenty of cases where people have lost a huge amount of weight... all of their medical numbers are fantastic, and the weight has stayed off for a long time. Right now it is working for me. Maybe in time I will get to the point where I am tired of low carbing... or perhaps I will hit a wall and will stop loosing weight.... You could very well get a private message from me asking for specific information in regards to some other kind of diet... who knows.

Don't be so quick to shoot something down. There is a lot of evidence out there that suggests strongly that there is something to low carb dieting. And that pile of evidence keeps growing.

Have a good evening,

Mike

Mike, good job on the 80 mile ride. What did you eat/drink during the ride and in the 2 hours afterwards? How long did you ride the next day, and the day after that? How long until you can do 50 miles at a pace above 18mph on flat roads?

Mike, good job on the 80 mile ride. What did you eat/drink during the ride and in the 2 hours afterwards? How long did you ride the next day, and the day after that? How long until you can do 50 miles at a pace above 18mph on flat roads?


your questions....

The ride was 77 miles.... I ate nothing during the ride.... there was no need to. i had a good breakfast (egg omlet) and an early lunch of tunafish with real mayo and a bowl of salad. I drank pleny of water that morning. I did not start the ride until 12:30pm. During the ride I had a total of 4 big bottles of water. I could have used a 5th like I said, I ran out of water for the last 10 miles or so. After the ride, I continued to drink water (no idea how much, but it was quite a bit) About an hour or so after the ride I ate dinner... A fantastic, tender, rare cut of steak with mushrooms, garlic, peppers, lots of real butter.... A big surving of brockley / cauliflower mix, and a side salad. The next day I did a 35 mile easy does it ride. Yesturday I did not ride because of the crappy weather. Today I will ride. I can do 50 miles at a pace at or above 18mph on flat roads now.

Colpo says that weight loss is about calorie deficit, no matter what type of diet is followed.
http://www.theomnivore.com/calories_do_count_baby.html

colpo is right about that, and I am living proof!

I have an online acquaintance, a woman in her 30s with four children who was recently diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. It's very aggressive, and her chances of survival are kind of fuzzy. She's an example of why I'd like to be as proactive as possible with my life and my health.

http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/jnci;91/20/1751