low carb diets

[Brett Jacques]

I am less a believer in low carb diets now than I have been in the past especially concerning longevity. I have spoken at length on this subject with Diana Schwarzbein (The Schwarzbein Principle) to get her feedback since we share many similar views about diet and exercise.

My objetions to high protein and low carb diet are not related to protein's effect on the kidneys or liver. While some research exists that indicate the potential for harm employing such a diet. I haven't seen it clinically.

What I have found is that all the low carb dieters who maintain this diet are all caffeine addicts. Even the modern day gurus, Robert Akins, Johnny Bowden and others pound down several cups of coffee. Yes, you may say that research doesn't support coffee causing harm but look at the study designs. All things can have some benefits but in practice, I see coffee doing more harm than good.

What good is a diet where you constantly have to whip it up with caffeine? Another thing I have noticed is the tremors in long term low carb dieters such as the aforementioned gurus. Caffeine or adrenal or neurological issues? I have seen long term caffeine use play hell with the adrenals and with women, alter normal menstrual cycles. I am not anti-coffee since it is my second favorite drug.

Find me a long-lived tribe that maintains a low carb lifestyle. A diet too low in carbs creates hormonal panic. Low blood sugar leads to increase in epinephrine to increase in cortisol and glucagon, which leads to an increase in insulin. Yes, the body adapts until it reaches the latter stages of Stress adaptation. I am starting to see many people fit an adrenal burnout pattern from low carb diets where previously, I only saw in high carb diets.

Where does that bring us? I guess the zone type of diet where 40-60% of you caloric intake is carbs but Barry Sears is no picture of health and also a caffeine abuser.

What diet can you maintain normal body fat levels, normal lipid profiles and stable insulin levels on? Comments please!

[Connie Brown]

Brett, I believe I am one of those who did a traditional low-carb thing for two long and worsened adrenal & insulin function and other hormones too. Course that was probably individual to me, who can take any diet and find the back-door way to screw it up.

My hope and faith now is that one can do it with adequate protein, good fats, and enough slow / whole carbs. I am losing steadily now at 1-1.5 pounds per week on a kinder/gentler Warrior style - lightly during the day, never going to "hunger failure", meals balanced per protein-veg-fats-slow carbs, and a larger meal at night.

But I did take quite a while BEFORE this to get off over-stimulating food and drink: white powder foods, stimulants, and diet drinks (eesh). In my case stabilizing the fuel made everything else easier and possible. Both mentally and physically.

[humilispuer]

I went on an all meat diet for a month straight and felt amazing. I had no digestive issues and leaned out nicely. That being said, it wasnt practical to keep up. Beyond that, I enjoy eating veggies. Not really sure how low carb will affect any of us long term - the inuit seem to do just fine on a nearly no carb diet. Maybe genetics or ancestry play a role. Who knows?

At this point in time, I follow a paleo diet. To me, it is extremely logical and makes the most sense. The fact that many individuals have successfully utilizing a paleo protocol to eliminate allergies, asthma, and things of the sort strengthens my belief that this style of eating is optimal. In an average day I probably eat as much meat as a lion. However, I also probably eat more veggies than a vegetarian. This blend of meat, eggs, nuts, veggies, and occassional fruit has improved me in every aspect. Mental clarity, memory, strength, endurance, physique, and even my skin. For me, this is all the info I need.

Coffee addiction is not confined solely to the low carb aficionados. As you stated, Barry Sears is an example. You note tremors in low carb individuals (on a side note: most of the people I know who are low carbing are also taking supplements). I note dry hair, pasty skin, and low sex drive in the low fat crowd. I suppose, in the end, you have to do whats right for you. You also have to be willing to evolve as whats right for you may change with time.

Pardon the long winded response. I tend to babble. Honestly, I believe the optimal diet for bodyfat, lipids and insulin is a paleo diet. Art De Vany, an avid proponent of paleo nutrition, to me, embodies health: http://aris.ss.uci.edu/econ/personnel/devany/evolutionaryfitness.html

-Jonathon

Brett

Haven't had a drop of caffiene in 3+ years on low carb. "Low carb" means alot of things. I'm probably around 100 grams a day= 400 cals, or about 15%. Scott is fairly low carb -not Atkin's levels, and is zero caffine. Painting with some broad strokes here.

Bill

[Scott Sonnon]

Brett,

I'm very interested to hear more, amigo.

[Brett Jacques]

So now I know maybe two people who can do it with no caffeine out of the 200 or so in my informal survey. Bill and Scott are still young guys able to withstand stress to the organism without a major breakdown. In a sense you both are professional athletes with the resources for appropriate nutrition, recovery, exercise, etc.

I was acquainted with Atkins and he had terrible tremors. His death is related to a fall but does it have a neurological antecedent from excess caffeine and extreme dieting. Ori the warrior diet guy consumes plenty of caffeine

So let us define low carb, in my opinion anything under 175 grams per day is low carb and I am also interested in the insulin index of the foods you eat. Anything over 350 grams is excessive and both numbers refer to a 200 lb male.

I am not pro-high carb diet, but low carbs set you up on a cascade of hormonal inhibition (T3 and leptin for example) and neurotransmitter depletion (serotonin). The stress to the organism created by low carb diets for extended period of time leads to dopamine depletion. The creates a domino effect especially in men leading to depression and a decrease in testosterone and growth hormone.

Remember our paleo ancesters worked like hell to save carbs for the winter using crude storage methods and eating all the carbs they could find in the spring, summer and fall. They had less overall stress on a day to day basis than modern people.

I am not a proponent of a lot of grains either but each source of carbohydrates contains many valuable nutrients. An old phrase that I still believe is applicable is that fat burns in the flame of carbohydrates.

From the sources of carbohydrates we also derive non-energy producing saccharides that form glycoconjugates necessary for normal hormonal and neurological function. These sugars are not absorbed in great amounts, therefore sufficient quantity of carbohydrate containing foods must be consumed to satisfy this requirement.

[Scott Sonnon]

Brett,

Jodie echoed much of what you wrote, though she's willing to let me experiment. I have found that the hi-carb intake (on average) every fourth day precedes a day of moderate biochem jitters.

In light of your post, and Jodie's reinforcement, I may recalibrate a higher daily intake and see if my 4-day pattern (http://circularstrengthmag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1584) disappears.

With serious Clubbell training, I've put on 30lbs of lean muscle in the past 9 months, but every fourth day, I'm a bear to deal with. Need to start listening more to the wife, since it is her occupational specialty.

[Connie Brown]

Hmm, you know what else has a four-day pattern, the beta-endorphin roller coaster.

A beta-endorphin spike can be followed by a crash 4 days later (plus or minus per individual). The spike can be from high carbs, or a big danger, or big thrill. You write in Body-flow about a history of chasing the peak experience - that sounds like volatile (ie highly upregulated) BE.

It seems to take 4 days for the receptors to "empty out" and start screaming again, after they fill up from the event.

[James Boelter]

Now THAT is really interesting. It is a rhythm I have experienced without registering it. One of the places where I get that '4 day crash' is when I start a 'Grease The Groove' protocol with a kettlebell lift so I can move up to the next size or take it to the next level. Literally 4 days into a GTG program, I've found that I undergo a weird 'resources' crisis where suddenly I've got 'nothing' and have to lay off for a day or two.

As for the caffeine needs of low-carbers...no, I don't really believe it is endemic to the low-carb life style; at least not anymore than it is endemic to the low fat/high carb lifestyle; everyone I've ever known who lived on rice cakes and pasta, etc, abused coffee and pop to an amazing degree, probably to deal with the ongoing insulin crashes. But it was OK, because they weren't ingesting FAT :lol:

And I stand by my running argument that low carb will not work for most people unless they are sleeping 9 hours or more at night, from 9pm to whenever. Which means that I, of course, am doomed and screwed until I can get off this friggin midnight-to-noon gauntlet (which I took because I needed a job to finish massage school, and I needed one that let me attend from 3:30 to 8:00 pm most nights). So I understand VERY well that this is 'easier said than done' in modern Western society.

But really, I think that caffeine is a 'stand alone' problem. It is so cheap, so easily available, and the energetic effects are so gratifying in the beginning that it doesn't really matter WHAT your diet does for your blood sugar and hormone levels - some hidden part of you still craves the additional 'buzz' that caffeine can add. It's a pharmacalogical level of effect, and that can almost always overwhelm and outweigh nutritional effects. JMO.

[uprise]

Let me be the third person in the informal survey that is low carb. I have been low carb for over 3 years now, and feel better than ever before. I eat FAR less than 175 grams a day. Probably more like 20-60 grams on an average day. We could debate about this one forever, and if you would like to engage in a debate I am all for it. The fact is that until recently in the history of Humans, we didn't have access to any steady carbohydrate sources. We ate meat. Plain and simple. Carnivores we are. We lived through an ice age....on meat. Low carb, high fat food. And right there is where we seem to go wrong with our low carb diets of today. We don't eat enough fat. Americans have become fat-phobic. All meat in a grocery store is trimmed of it's wonderful fat. Organs and rarely eating in this country and when they are they are trimmed of that INCREDIBLE amount of fat that surrounds them. These are the foods that native people used to thrive on. I have found that a good number to shoot for is about 60-80 percent fat.

FYI, there are a few well documented tribes that eat a low carb diet, and they are EXTREMELY healthy. There is some great research on the eskimos (actually means raw meat eater, roughly) before we destroyed them with white flour and white sugar. The Masai tribe lives more or less on cows alone: blood, meat and milk. (REAL milk, not that 5 percent crap they sell in stores that has been skimmed of its greates asset, its fat) The Samburu are another good example. The fact is there really aren't that many native people living anywhere near the way they used to, so it is hard to find the evidence in this modern world.

I'm gonna stop here before I end up writing a book and boring the hell out of everyone.

[humilispuer]

Mike,

Not at all boring - fascinating! I agree that the average low carb dieter does not consume enough fat. Along those lines; "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration," by Weston A Price, is a gem. I suggest all check it out.

Personally, I seem to thrive on a paleo diet. Everyone, from friends to family, has noticed how much calmer and "in control" I am. If I add carbs back in, I am one mean motha! I get cranky, moody, irritable, and exhausted.

Atkins is not an indicator of the condition of the rest of us. Using one person to general an entire group is bad news. An informal 200 person survey; not very convincing IMO.

If fat only burns in the flame of carbohydrate, how do you explain the condition of individuals such as myself and Bill (both coasting at 8-9% bodyfat) and Steve Maxwell (Much lower than Bill or I)?

My on "beef" with this post is that you seem to be coming down on low carb without offering an alternative. Ok, let's say Paleo is not optimal. I still believe it is the best of the worst.

Exactly what types of questions were asked in this informal survey? Were the people eating enough fat? Were they eating all natural food or process faux low carb products? Etc. There are many variables here. Beyond that, you noted that most of these people abuse coffee. This is bound to give anyone jitters regardless of their diet. Lastly, do you have anything other than heresay to show that atkins was in bad shape due to extreme dieting?

Since you seem to be in command of everything that is wrong with nutritional regimens; what "protocol" do you suggest?

-Jonathon

Brett

Come on - very interesting stuff but

I'm 44 (today) and Maxwell is 51

Calling me a "virtually professional athlete" is a joke. I have a 50 hour a week desk job - for 14 years now - and train 30 min. a day. on average

Bill

[Scott Sonnon]

Connie, can you expand upon this BE cycle theory, please?

Brett, I'm still interested to hear more, amigo.

[Brett Jacques]

People seem to read what they want out of the posts, let us debate further.

Don't quote tribal data because they are not long lived people. The Masai, Inuits and Samboru are not long-lived people; their average life span is 44 years. Try the Hunza, Okinawans, Georgians, they are long-lived not on low carb diets.

I repeat, I am not pro high carb. I am anti-low carb for extended periods of time. I am not anti-fat and not anti-high protein.

Being on a low carb diet for 3 years is a small amount of time for anyone and not long enough to tax the organism. You can not eat for at least 2 weeks and not show signs of degenerative diseases.

I am not in command of all that is right in the diets of the day. I learn more every day so I bring these points up for us to explore.

Bill, go look in the mirror with your shirt off-are you the norm? What kind of focus do you maintain on your physical self? You think Steve Maxwell is an average joe? How long has he been on a low carb diet? 3, maybe 5 years and he's not a professional athlete....??????

Let me repeat what our paleo ancestors did in case it wasn't understood the first time. Paleo ancestors ate any and all carbs they could find or knew about whenever and whereever they found them. Nature made sure that they could usually only do that in spring, summer and fall to ensure survival of the species. The low-carb lifestyle primarily occured in winter but not out of choice. In the other seasons, our ancestors ate as much fruit, honey and vegetation as they could find. Eventually, they developed crude storage and preservation methods such as salting and drying. Paleo people learned pretty early on how to dry berries and other fruits. What's the glycemic and or insulin index of dried fruit?

I am not advocating a low anything diet nor am I suggesting a feast or famine diet based on the seasons. I have tried every eating style/diet that you can imagine for 1 year or more. I have personal experience with a lot of dietary regimes.

So eat enough of everything so that you have enough protein to support your neurotransmitter and hormonal function, enough fat to support membrane health, hormonal and eicosanoid production and enough carbs to support the aforementioned, provide adequate glycogen, and base material for glycoconjugation (making proteins and fats with carbs for immune, neurological, etc. support).

[humilispuer]

Brett,

Sorry for the brash response. Lack of sleep makes me cranky! I do understand where you are coming from. I do, in fact, eat fruit and honey. Variety is vital and of the utmost importance.

A friend of mine who lived in Okinawa for a while said that their diet is not as low in fat as is thought. He said they are quite fond of pork and love to cook in grease. Of course this is anecdotal, however, it has been reverberated by many others.

You're quite right, the Georgians and Hunza live extremely long lives and *higher* carb diets. In fact, if I recall correctly, they seem to thrive on a good deal of grain.

As I said, I totally understand your perspective. I really don't think any diet will unarguably be coined "optimal" in our lifetime. All I have is my experience and how I feel/perform/look. Based on these 3 key factors, paleo works best for me.

Two questions. You say that being on a low carb diet for 3 years is not long enough to tax the organism. How long do you theorize it would take before the "damage" would be measureable? You say you have tried every eating style imaginable; on what plan did you look/feel/perform best?

-Jonathon

[sin_goodfellow]

Knuckledraggers,


I'm a firm believer in studying different diet methods and then forming your own lifestyle eating method, ala Coach Szolek. That said, growing up I ate a whole lot of carbs and always had a lot of energy and endurance, but not a lot of strength. When I decided to drop all the extra flab(6' 2" 275 30% BF) my deskjob had put on me, the best results came from simply reducing my caloric intake to -2000 calories a day + lots of hill sprints, swimming and a job with lots of manual labor. While I tended to veer towards a Warrior Diet type method of eating, I made no real selection of low carb, high carb, or zone diet methods. I just focused on healthy organic food and minimizing consumption of processed junk. Health was superb the entire time, especially when I removed soda. I did'nt drink coffee, so soda was my big caffeine fix. The jitters are gone now :D

This did eventually hit a wall, when apparently my body managed to slow my metabolism to the point where no further improvement could be made and for awhile I knew the joy of "stubborn fat". However, i'm now following a warrior diet, paleo foods type diet as per the advice of Bill and Jonathon. It was and is still going great and the fat is going away steadily(204#, ~18% BF, stronger than ever). For all of last week until Saturday, I followed their exact advice and felt great. However, this Saturday there was a big dorm potluck. I ate huge servings of carbs, including rice and mashed potatoes and crashed hard. It had a very direct effect on my mental moods. Far from a carb up, it was most definitely a carb down.

I believe the biggest diet issue for my particular body is minimizing calories consumed vs. burned in a way that my body will not shutdown my metabolism. The Warrior Diet with minimal carbs ala Paleo foods seems very good at this and I definitely believe that eliminating processed foods is key in any true road to health.

I think a low carb approach is sustainable and healthy in our current American society for two main reasons. 1) I've noticed that at least with myself and a few others(all non-athletes or amateurs), it's not when you eat food but how much of it you eat and what it is your eating, that matters. 2) Since I don't have to run down my meat and hurl spears at it, I don't need lots of carbs. It seems to me that the massive carb storage practices you speak of Brett might have been more a matter of neccessity than health.

IMHO, while Maxwell and others may be proof that a minimum carb/high protein diet can provide plenty of energy, health ect...They don't have to run down and kill the meat they eat. For CroMags, carbs were a source of energy on the route to the big meat payoff.

[Scott Sonnon]

Connie,

I've moved your post to here for a separate discussion: Beta-endorphin cycles (http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1716)

Thanks.

[Jay76]

Okinawa

Hmm, most people don't know that their main staple food is pork. All other foods are second on the list.

With myself and diet over the years I am slowly moving to an all meat/vegetable diet mainly because other foods are making me sick literally..Dairy kills my sinsus cavities and digestion problems, grains give me digestion problems, fruts go right threw me like no tomorrow, i get bad headaches, body aches, etc, when I anything THAT IS NOT a meat or vegetable, but meat does me better..Yes, I am still addicted to sugar, but slowly and getting off that, since it destroys the way I feel..anyone have these problems.....Eating foods that don't go with yeah is really not worth the hell that its puts my body threw. I am so sensitive to foods its crazy how my body reacts, espically to bad foods...or what is bad for me...

Jay

[uprise]

First, let me say that this is not an attack on Brett's words, just my opinion and conclusions from personal experimentation and much research.

This is turning out to be an emotional thread. Humil, I totally agree about Weston Prices' book. It's a must have for anyone studying diet. He was the last man on earth to have the opportunity to actually SEE and STUDY native peoples.


Find me a long-lived tribe that maintains a low carb lifestyle...

Don't quote tribal data because they are not long lived people. The Masai, Inuits and Samboru are not long-lived people; their average life span is 44 years.

This is a difficult one to tackle. Well, yes the average Inuit lived to be about 50-52. But, up until the day of death, you would not find cancer, heart disease, or any common issue present. The harsh environment is an incredible stress compared to our current lifestyles, which will easily cut off quite a few years due to stress. Factor in infant deaths and you have a number that is uncomparable by todays standards. As for the Masai and Samburu, where did you get your information from? I have both formal and informal evidence that the Masai have long, very healthy lives. But as stated above, there is truly no comparing someone living with the stresses of outdoor life with no grocery stores and no doctors and no dentists etc. to our plush, modern, care-free, stress-free living arrangements. What these tribes do show us, is that by following a low-carb diet you can live a HEALTHY life, free from disease, quite contrary to old age in our society.


Paleo ancestors ate any and all carbs they could find or knew about whenever and whereever they found them. Nature made sure that they could usually only do that in spring, summer and fall to ensure survival of the species. The low-carb lifestyle primarily occured in winter but not out of choice. In the other seasons, our ancestors ate as much fruit, honey and vegetation as they could find.

Any and all carbs, in a non-agricultural setting, amounts to a lot less than you would imagine. While it is nice to think of the world in a "Garden of Eden" way with fruit trees surrounding a beautiful meadow, reality is quite a different story. Grains are out of the question, because they required milling. Not food for humans. If you were stuck in a wheat field with nothing but your body and mind you would starve. Fruit is only available for a limited time in limited quantities. Honey, well, lets just say good luck on finding honey in quantity in nature. You have read Lights Out, I see.

Well, it's time to leave work, so I have to stop now. In the meantime, if you want to take a look at what appears to be the best diet for regeneration, healing and disease prevention look up the Primal Diet. Keep in mind that I didn't say that it was the most practical. I followed it for over 2 years with INCREDIBLE results, but my financial situation keeps me from following it now temporarily. I heartily recommend the book We Want to Live by Aajonus Vonderplanitz. Perhaps the best book on diet written to date.

Great thread and very interesting - emotions aside :twisted:

I think the key with the Hunzas et all - including the tribes and cultures used to support the low carb paradigm as well -is....drumroll please....calories.

The Hunzas are skinny and eating a virtually all organic, high fiber, low cal diet. This is a good diet for life extension due the caloric restriction.

In the great USA the key to diet in the real world is how to keep calories in check in an , as Ellis puts it, ad libitum, environment. I have seen almost across the board failure with low fat.

Bretts #s for a 200 lb guy would represent a significant decrease in carbs over the typical fat Americans diet. I have seen this argument put forth as the reason why the Zone was such a revelation for triathletes and marathoners - although it was "modrate" it was a huge cut in carbs and rise in fat and protein for most and helped them lean out and gain muscle.

The argument over what is the "right" amount of carbs should be answered by outcome. Are you lean, strong, healthy, don't get sick...etc..if not adjust.

Bill

[Brett Jacques]

Good replies, everyone, thanks.

Shall we continue?

Uprise-The tribal diets you are fond of quoting may not lead to CV disease, osteoporosis or cancer but these take quite awhile to develop. The Masai et al do not live long enough. The demographics for the Masai are skewed simply because an accurate census in not available and traditional Masai have a different concept of time.

What kills traditional tribes following a paleo diet? Infections. Low carb diets over extended periods suppress immune function. When did American Indians primarily sucumb to English germ warfare? In winter, the period of least carb intake.

There is ample evidence that even Neanderthals knew how to preserve foods such as carbs but did not in sufficient quantities.

The Primal Diet is tricky and some what risky. I have been on a similar diet in my life. The Chinese learned long ago that cooking increases the absorption of some nutrients and of course you lose others along the way. This concept has been validated by American researchers. In this toxic world we live in I think the risk/benefit ratio does not justify such a diet.

Bill, you're right caloric restriction can work provided you get plenty of rest. I believe that a lot of Americans eat too many carbs but consuming too little then....

sin goodfellow-good point about energy requirements and carb intake.

Jonathon-have no idea how long it takes to excessively burden the body, it is based on an individual's constitution.

I was an anatomy chart when I ate fruits, nuts and veges until I crashed about a year later. The same happened when I followed a diet similar to the Primal Diet. I got absolutely ripped to shreds when following a low carb diet and taking a formula I developed. My adrenals are still pissed for that brief foray into vanity.

The best diet...??? Balance and moderation, fresh and organic, raw and cooked

[Charles Long]

No matter what diet a person is on, I think anyone can benefit healthwise by cutting out processed white junk like sugar, white flour, white rice, eliminating hydrogenated fats, cutting out vegetable oils with the exception of olive, flax, and coconut, and by eating fresh whole foods both cooked and raw. The Weston Price book mentioned is good as is Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon. Our bodies need nourishment not artificial food.

The big problem I see with low carb diets is all the fake foods low carb companies are putting out that people are buying by the ton. Artificial sweeteners, junk made with soy(which has it's own baggage and it's not good), and other items that are highly processed and devoid of nutrition. Eat real food instead of chemicals and processed junk. In what proportions and how much depends a lot on the individual. I doubt there's a one size fits all approach to diet.

Charles Long

[uprise]

Brett - Not to be a total prick, but this following statement is 100% incorrect. In fact, it is exactely opposite of what current scientific research states. Brett, there is much wrong information out there. If you only read the abstracts on these research studies, you don't get the whole story. You get what the researches expected to find and what the sponsoring corporation/agency wanted them to find. To find the truth, you must wade through the studies, and see where their error lies.


Low carb diets over extended periods suppress immune function.

"Some risks are associated with such an extreme high-carbohydrate diet
if followed for a long time. In fact, this dietary regimen means that individuals may actually sacrifice their own structural lipids (fats) for energy needs. Vitamin Q and vitamin E are significant factors for the health of white blood cells; they?re the cells that are richest in antioxidants and, consequently, enhance the immune system. Significant immune system suppression is a possible result of low dietary intake of fats and the consequent use of one?s own fat stores as an energy source."

[Connie Brown]

Brett - Not to be a total prick, but this following statement is 100% incorrect. In fact, it is exactely opposite of what current scientific research states.
Every time I see opposites like this I expect both are right and the research just doesn't prove it yet.

these forums are so fun cuz we can opine:

>>rant on

What *I* think is, I picture insulin on one of those hospital instruments like on TV.

Extreme High-carb has insulin flat-lined HIGH all the time. Not good.

Extreme Low-carb has insulin flat-lined LOW all the time. Not good either.

What's good is a nice natural sine wave, how boring unglamorous and hard to achieve.

>> rant off

[bob_stra]

I don't know if this is of any value here, but I'll post it anyway.

(re: calorie restriction and longevity)

http://tinyurl.com/3cg2y

[Brett Jacques]

Discussion and arguement are not attributes of being a total prick, you're not one either as far as I can tell.

I whole heartedly disagree with your assessment and don't tacitly assume I only read abstracts.

You start to quote some research saying that immune suppression is a consequence of using one's own fat stores as an energy source. Come on man! That is the primary use of low carb diets to use your own stored fat because that's what it's there for. Immune suppression isn't a result of burning stored fat, the body is supposed to do that.

Do not assume because I don't approve of long-term low carb diets that I automatically advocate high carb diets or low protein or low fat etc.

Can we agree that high carb diets are bad....????? Yes? They supress immunity by way of excess insulin causing its cascade of hormonal, eicosanoid and neurotransmitter dysfunction.

Here is how long-term low carb diets suppress immune function-they create elevations in epinephrine and cortisol. Both of these characters suppress immunity. Additionally, diets low in carbohydrates are low in vitamin E necessary for immune and cell membrane function. Without the necessary carbohydrates, cell signaling (cytokines) are off and foreign cell/invader recognition is compromised. Cell membranes are not only dependent upon fatty acids but carbohydrates as well.

Stress/exercise/extreme low carb diets increase the demand for carbohydrates necessary for normal immune function. Most of the regulatory proteins for immunity are dependent upon adequate carbohydrate intake. Please notice, I didn't say grains and I didn't say high carb intake.

Some important aspects of carbohydrate predominant foods are lost when cooking and some are more accessible.

Connie, when you get a chance, try and find a copy of The Reverse Effect by Water Heiby. It will be very interesting to you in light of your sine wave comment

[uprise]

Hi Brett,

Let me start by saying that I did not mean to assume that you only read abstracts; I was just attempting to state that abstracts and their associated studies often differ in actuality. It was not meant to mean that you, Brett Jacques, did not read the studies hereto referred to. I apologize about my miswording.

As for that tidbit of research about immune supression: the study was referring to the use of cell membranes fatty acids, not stored adipose tissue. Low carb diets do in fact raise glucagon levels, which in-turn pull from adipose tissue for fuel as well as ketones.

We definitly agree that high carb diets are not the way to go, for a myriad of reasons. As for low carb diets being low in vitamin E, well, that would only be the case with a low carb, low fat, high protein diet. I believe that a 60-80% fat diet is optimal, in which case you would be hard pressed to not get enough of the fat soluble vitamins, A, D, E and K.


Without the necessary carbohydrates, cell signaling (cytokines) are off and foreign cell/invader recognition is compromised.

This statement fails to explain the mitigation of such diseases as lymphoma, cancer, meningitis, asthma and a ton of others by a high fat, low carb diet such as the primal diet. I know of at least 2 dozen people personally who have reversed just about every disease you can think of via a high fat, low carb diet.


Cell membranes are not only dependent upon fatty acids but carbohydrates as well.

Cell membranes are 98% fatty acids. They are highly regulated and almost entirely dependent on fatty acids and their associated transport mechinisms which run on enzymes i.e. amino acids.

I have subsisted on a next to zero carb diet for well over 2 years now with no adverse affects. I have even cancelled my health care plan, but thats a whole different discussion altogether. I guess we can both agree that a predominantly fat/protein diet is the way to go, with me on one side of the fence saying "lower the carbs" and you on the other saying "carbs are OK". I like the fact that you excluded grains from your carb sources, for they appear to be the worst of all carbs next to good ole white sugar. As long as we both feel good and are in good health, all is well.

By the way, this has been a good and lively debate with much information for all to learn from.

[Brett Jacques]

Mike,

I recommend you review some literature on glycobiology to become familiar with the importance of carbohydrates and their crucial moities.

My statement that you alluded to does not fail to explain the "cure" of such diseases by the primal diet. The primal diet may allow some people to detox so that there is less impediment to cure or it may provide nutrients lacking or it may just be coicidence.

Glycolipids and glycoproteins are necessary for the formation, maintenance of structural integrity and permeability of cell membranes.

Let's take the health care plan to the alt med forum here.

[uprise]

Hello Brett,


I recommend you review some literature on glycobiology to become familiar with the importance of carbohydrates and their crucial moities.

I have a pretty decent understanding of glycobiology and do not discount the importance of carbs. Glycolipids and glycoproteins play a major role in signaling cell characteristics to the outside world. There is no arguing that. However, there is only an extremely small amount of carbohydrate required when compared to lipids and amino acids. Furthermore, gluconeogenesis is quite a wonderful and efficient method of creating these carbs as the need arises. There is no requirement to ingest carbohydrates to achieve proper function of the body.


My statement that you alluded to does not fail to explain the "cure" of such diseases by the primal diet. The primal diet may allow some people to detox so that there is less impediment to cure or it may provide nutrients lacking or it may just be coicidence.

These people were on an extremely low carb diet. Typically, the primal diet offers about 5% carbs, 15% protein and 80% fat. In order to reverse disease or to show substantial signs of improvement, one must stay with the diet for a number of years. Now, if immune system suppression is a result of extended low-carb dieting, then surely the body would not have the ability or means to detoxify itself. In addition, the fact that all food is eaten raw with this diet and full of bacteria, one would think that a suppressed immune system due to a low carb diet would not be able to deal with the incredible stress this creates.


Glycolipids and glycoproteins are necessary for the formation, maintenance of structural integrity and permeability of cell membranes.

I can't argue with the fact that both glycolipids and glcoproteins are necessary in cell membranes. However, we can see once again the incredibly small amount of carbohydrates needed when compared to lipids and proteins. Glycolipids are the least common of the membrane lipids making up about 2% of the cell membrane. Only one small part of the glycolipid even contains a carbohydrate. The same goes for glycoproteins. They are always found in the outer leaflet of the plasma membrane, and they never protrude into the cytoplasm. Glycolipids and glycoproteins function as adhesion and address loci for cells. Membrane transport is a result of either diffusion, carrier proteins, transport proteins, non-gated channels (proteins), gated channels (proteins), or active transport.

So, while carbohydrate are required for many activities in the human body, the percentage of carbs as compared to both protein and fat is minimal. When it comes to diet, there are NO essential carbohydrates, but there ARE essential amino acids and fats. The small amount of carbohydrates that one would consume on an EXTREMELY low carb diet would more than suffice to keep the organism running efficiently.

Brett, I just wanted to add that you have a much greater understanding of biochem than the average joe. If you don't mind me asking, are you an ND, OD, DC?

[Brett Jacques]

Mike,
The rub is that the lipids and proteins are recycled much more efficiently for glycoconjugation, whereas the carbohydrate portions are usually eliminated. The ability to digest, absorb and utilize monosaccharides from dietary staples is not efficient. Therefore you need constant and varying amounts of carbohydrate containing foods.

I am not a big fan of gluconeogenesis simply because it is indiscretionary, which may in some people lead to canabalization of critical tissue.

You are right that there is no "known" requirement for carbs for proper function simply because diseases related to problems with glycoconjugation are less studied, less understood and more are being discovered. I believe there are essential carbs and I am starting to see science verify this.

I agree that the primal diet is high in bacteria and other microbes, which may be its boon or bane. Many people have cured themselves with all sorts of diets such as the grape diet. So maybe the people who benefitted from the primal diet needed just what it gave them. Disease cure is like lock(s) needing key(s). A certain diet may be just the right key but it might not be the correct key for another's lock.

I am not against something like the primal diet, it wasn't ideal for me.

I am an ND, '92 graduate of the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland, OR. During school we tried all the different diets, the primal diet is very similar to the one I experimented with from France though I can't remember the name of the diet or the group that espoused the diet. They ran into quite a lot of trouble with the French Gov. for all sorts of things.

Mike, thanks again for your comments, arguements etc. This good stuff.

[uprise]

Hi Dr. Brett,

I wanted to extend my thanks to you as well for sharing your knowledge and experience.

The diet you speak of from France, problably Instinctive Eating and Guy Claude Burger. I gave it a shot, but for too many reasons to speak of it just didn't work.

Great info and discussions...

[Glenn Sunshine]

You all are miles ahead of me in terms of understanding, experience and so on, but FWIW I thought I'd mention a diet my brother (a DC doing a lot with TBM) recommends. The rules are simple: no sugar, no starches (except rice dry fried until opaque and then steamed), but all the fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, etc. you want. The object is to limit insulin production. Incidentally, according to the TBM guys, artificial sweeteners cause the same insulin release as sugar--evidently, it's a neural reaction connected to taste. I was on this diet for quite a while, then fell off the wagon. What I can tell you is without trying I lost about 15 pounds without losing muscle mass and while maintaining and expanding a pretty extensive conditioning program.

Lately, I've been experimenting with the WD. I dropped ten pounds fairly quickly, but I'm not following it religiously and so I plateaued out there. It is making me more alert during the day due to the lack of blood sugar fluctuations, but I think I need to combine it with the TBM diet as well if it's going to have the maximum effect on energy, alertness, etc. Not to mention I could really stand to lose another 10 pounds....

Yours,
Glenn

[MORSEY]

I am not an expert, but will share my experiance.
My diet, for years, was beef, chips and soda. I also loved the fast food. I was at 280+# 11/03. I looked into Atkins and I have lost over 60 pounds. I am at 220.
I have cut out caffeine, soda and chips. I eat a big salad with every meal and then eat my fill of beef, chicken or fish.
I am not saying that this is a healthy diet, but it is healthier that before. I am lighter and have more energy. I am also not a caffiene junky.
Just to give you an idea of my fatness. I lost 60+# and still have a fat belly.
There are down sides to every diet. People will find issue with what ever you eat. So I am not worried.

[Doug Szolek]

One of the best threads I've read through in a while :!:

One thing I wanted to mention about the illness cures as proof of good diet. There are so many stories circulating about how cirtain diets cured all sorts of illness that it's hard to take them seriously. To me it seems that in most of these cases it's more a matter of what the individual has stopped eating than what they started eating which has helped in the curing of their particular ailment.

Anyways guys, a great read from all angles. Sorry I missed it as it was being reported.

[kbfunTH]

... towards reading these kinds of discussions. There's usually something useful to take from them, but most often... NOT.

I for one have all but lost my interest in reading or 'wasting' time with all the diet theories that keep coming around.

For myself, the last book I have read on the issue of nutrition was Ultimate Diet Secrets. I feel that I have all that I need to achieve whatever level of health is possible for me. This includes the level of body fat and muscle I desire to have. The only remaining thing is for me to put to practice what I know.

Part of this practice includes learning all that CST has to offer and in turn offering back all that I can.

[circular]

Forum rules: In all posting, keep it training related, constructive and clean; no advertising.

Keep it constructive: if you have intelligent objection to specific points, post them. This very simple policy alone has enabled this forum to always avoid flame wars, and always be useful to its members. Otherwise, if you find such discussions not useful, don't read them, and don't post on them.

[admin]

Dr. Brett wrote:

Disease cure is like lock(s) needing key(s). A certain diet may be just the right key but it might not be the correct key for another's lock.
Nicely put! The issue then is "So many diets, so many people, so many conditions, so many cures, so many agendas, where do I fit in?"

Apparently nobody has all the answers. Its up to each individual to experiment with her/his body and find what works in their own case. To think its going to work for all people under all circumstances for all illness is probably painting with too big a brush.

Different strokes for different folks has never been more true than in the diet realm. We need to observe, experiment, gather information, and find out for ourselves what works in our own particular case.

This diet forum serves a very useful purpose by exposing us all to the many 'different strokes'.

[rbibbs]

Fantastic, wide-ranging discussion. I liked Michael's empirical observation that different things 'work' for different people. And even Tim's perspective as a hardcore omnivore... he can one-legged-squat with me sitting on his shoulders, so he must know what works for him.

When I'm talking nutrition, I'm speaking from the fringe of knowing almost nothing. All I have is empirical observations. I'm a meat & potatoes person. Over the years, I have demonstrated to myself that the quantity of either that I eat has little impact on my body proportions. I force-fed myself mass quantities of meat + carbs over 9 months one year, just to see if I'd get bigger than 140# (the weight I've been since 1962). Yes, I got to 150 and my beltline expanded by one inch, but nothing else changed. I went back to what I've done historically, eating what I want, when I'm hungry.

Evidently I'm insensitive to diet. Something else is determining my proportions, something genetic most likely, since my sister is the same way. Surmisal, but some people could be just as sensitive to diet as I am insensitive.

Two things I think we can all agree on. One is, no one dietary protocol is going to affect everyone in a positive way; metabolism and digestive efficiency are just too individual. The other is, that if there's any one thing responsible for the 'general overweightness' of Americans, it's corn syrup. We didn't become chronically obese as a nation until corn syrup replaced sugar in soft drinks. What's the difference? Help me biochemists, but the newspaper-level accounts of it say that corn syrup (fructose) has to be 'detoxified' by the liver, whereas sucrose can be absorbed directly. The liver is a very busy organ, and adding to its workload can't improve its function. Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that high fructose consumption alters the overall metabolism in favor of storage. Well, I won't labor this issue, because (hopefully) most of our 'healthy nutrition' folks are already aware of this. And the politics of why corn syrup replaced sugar belongs on another forum... if you're curious, PM me.

[Mike]

This is a great thread. Nurtrition for me is a puzzle I've yet to solve. I don't limit what I eat in terms of carbs or fat, in other words, I've never been a real low carb or low fat guy. I tried low carb and found it boring and inconvenient. I'm half chinese and still eat with my family so white rice is a big staple. The only major difference I've seen in body composition is when I've cut down on portion sizes or cut down on portions all together (a la Warrior Diet). I will say this, there have been times where I have lived off white bread, potatos, rice and pastries and I noticed no change in body composition. I don't eat like that anymore because there are other health risks besides those dealing with body comp.

Now I just try to eat "sensibly," if that means anything anymore. I eat whole grain cereals in the morning, eggs, meats, veggies and fruits etc.

[bluedrift]

HI,

For one who knows little about dieting(me :)) other than common sense this is a whole lotta great info!

One observation is that given all the knowledge available it appears we are still on the path of learning when it comes to eating.

It seems that one should cut out what isn't natural (refined sugar, processed foods, etc.) I think we all agree on that but the challenge is the right mixture, even if it changes, of the good foods left to choose from.

[Tim Haws]

As a professional chef, and future farmer, consuming the right kinds of food has an additional positive side effect to one's health, it has direct influence on socio/enviro that effect us all. Organic, clean, sustainable. Eat seasonally, locally if possible. I have a general list of produce by season that I go by. Another way to approach one's eating habits are to look at your meals in relation to what you do on a daily basis. Sorry for the thread drift :oops:

[JonZ]

This is a great thread. Nurtrition for me is a puzzle I've yet to solve. I don't limit what I eat in terms of carbs or fat, in other words, I've never been a real low carb or low fat guy. I tried low carb and found it boring and inconvenient. I'm half chinese and still eat with my family so white rice is a big staple. The only major difference I've seen in body composition is when I've cut down on portion sizes or cut down on portions all together (a la Warrior Diet). I will say this, there have been times where I have lived off white bread, potatos, rice and pastries and I noticed no change in body composition. I don't eat like that anymore because there are other health risks besides those dealing with body comp.

Now I just try to eat "sensibly," if that means anything anymore. I eat whole grain cereals in the morning, eggs, meats, veggies and fruits etc.

It's not that I haven't solved it, it's just that the mind is willing but the belly is weak...Now having popped off with that I do believe that portion sizes are the key to peoples "size" and over all health. For instance, after "Super Size Me" was released, apparently a Dutch journalist did the same thing, only he ate normal sized meals at Mickey D's. His weight and vitals remained the same (I am relaying this second hand, if anyone knows of the documentation please add on...) The moral of the story? don't super size dough head (although MD's I believe is quite vile).

The only time my body composition changes rapidly is when I go on a Coke or Mt. Dew bender for a few months, then the weight starts to jump on me like commuters running for the bus.

The only clinical research that show a conection bewteen diet and longevity (which I believe goes back to the original post, low carbs, caffeine and longevity) is Walford's, et. al. studies on calorie restriction, which orginally started in the 1930's at Cornell University. Today calorie restriction studies continue at UCLA and the University of Wisconson. The calorie restriction must be executed in a manner in which the most nutritious foods are eaten...1800 calories a day of Twinkies, Capn' Crunch and Pepsi don't work. The problem with CR is, who wants to live on 1800 calories a day?

Jon

[Connie Brown]

It's not that I haven't solved it, it's just that the mind is willing but the belly is weak...

The only time my body composition changes rapidly is when I go on a Coke or Mt. Dew bender for a few months, then the weight starts to jump on me like commuters running for the bus.

The only clinical research that show a conection bewteen diet and longevity (which I believe goes back to the original post, low carbs, caffeine and longevity) is Walford's, et. al. studies on calorie restriction, which orginally started in the 1930's at Cornell University. Today calorie restriction studies continue at UCLA and the University of Wisconson. The
A number of interesting ideas raised in just one post. Congrats and LOL Jon.

A division between mind and belly - another one of those false polarities. What we eat affects our minds and vice versa.

Portion size - true enough but only if it's good quality. I hope you weren't trying to say you could have appropriate portions of Mountain Dew (no such thing!) I don't think you were but just in case.

Calories in calories out - also not as simple as it looks. More like, match the quantity and quality of food you take in, with the quantity and quality of energy you can burn. So many times people don't account for the effects of bad food on burn rate. Or on the other side of the equation, the effects of a damaged metabolism so normal exercise doesn't burn the same.

[Scott Sonnon]

Very keen insights Connie! I agree completely that quality of food directly transltes to quality of movement / energy!

[JonZ]

[/quote] A number of interesting ideas raised in just one post. Congrats and LOL Jon.

A division between mind and belly - another one of those false polarities. What we eat affects our minds and vice versa.

Portion size - true enough but only if it's good quality. I hope you weren't trying to say you could have appropriate portions of Mountain Dew (no such thing!) I don't think you were but just in case.

Calories in calories out - also not as simple as it looks. More like, match the quantity and quality of food you take in, with the quantity and quality of energy you can burn. So many times people don't account for the effects of bad food on burn rate. Or on the other side of the equation, the effects of a damaged metabolism so normal exercise doesn't burn the same.[/quote]

Walford, and the other researchers on calorie restriction are (or were, Walford passed away last year) quite adamant about the nutrition intake needing to be top quality.

In Walford's magnus opus "Beyond the 120 Year Diet" he states, and I paraphrase, "I have ice cream, or a Coke 'occassionally'. What is wrong is that they have put these items on top of the food pyramid (USDA). They have no business being on any food pyramid. The only thing this stuff belongs on top of is a tombstone.."

Food quality is of utmost importance.

Anyway, enough of my opinion.

Jon

[JonZ]

One last thought on this...

As a high school teacher and coach, I have noticed our teen age athletes, while being in good physical condition competition wise, seem to be less "lean" as they were when I went to high school. They look softer.

A good example is a couple of girls on our basketball team (not to just pick on the girls, they are generally tougher than the boys) can play 48 minutes of basketball at a break neck pace, but have "pooches" around their mid sections.

Maybe my memory is fading, but in the early 80's high school atheletes, generally did not have that.

PErsonally I think it's the ever present soda and snack machines that inhabit every corner of every highschool you walk in to.

We wanted to get rid of ours, but the Pepsi rep said, "You still have 3 years on your contract!"

Jon

[Scott Sonnon]

Jon,

I believe there is a strong advocate in Radiant Recovery who has been working with schools to remove soda machines. Perhaps Connie can refer.

[jbrunson]

I am no expert on this, have no formal schooling in the subject, but have read alot of books on the topic. I also have had the reverse expirence, in that I went from a lean, strong person who ate a "good" diet to some one who has got fat and weak (do to a back injury and a bit of depresson). I am young (23) but my genes suck (obese mother and over weight father, etc.). The first time I started getting fat I was able lean out and gain back muscle in about 6 weeks, then the back started to hurt. Sorry I dont have good numbers, but I went from 34" waste to 40" and about 215 (with muscle) to ~250 (with little muscle). What does my getting fat have to do with a diet to lose weight and be healthy? Just that I have gained and lost weight and know how I will do it again. The answer is in Weston Price's book Nutrition and physical degeneration, mostly used to support low-carb, high protien diets. It does not support this type of diet but a high fat moderate protien, moderate carb diet, and most importantly nutrient dense.
I have typed enough but the book wants people to stay away from refined and altered foods, eat foods that are high in nutrients (that means if it is high protien and low carb one should eat mostly organs and use muscle only if absolutly needed). What ones mother ate is vitale to a persons current state of health, is another ignored aspect of the book. Diving into the complexities of nutrition is great but becarful not to miss the forest because you stare at the trees too much.

[Scott Sonnon]

Jason,

Overweight parents do not in any way mean that your "genes suck."

[vyapada]

Indeed!

The permutations are quite numerous, but one reason they might be overweight now is because they have maintained a lifestyle conducive to being overweight.

Whilst there exists the nature versus nurture argument of personality, I think we make many conscious choices in respect to our lifestyle.

As an example, I am experiencing a neurogenic chronic pain condition, but I make efforts to maintain movement and reasonably healthy eating habits in my lifestyle.

[jbrunson]

All true, saying that my genes suck is a gross generalization ment as a prestrike against people who would like to blame ones genes for good or ill. In no way do I subscribe to that theory, genes have a role to play, but at most they tell us what paths we can travel, not what paths we do travel. My parents would be the first to admit they got the way they did because of horrible eating habits and a lack of exercise.
I have enjoyed reading this discusstion and don't wish to side track it.

[JonZ]

All true, saying that my genes suck is a gross generalization ment as a prestrike against people who would like to blame ones genes for good or ill. In no way do I subscribe to that theory, genes have a role to play, but at most they tell us what paths we can travel, not what paths we do travel. My parents would be the first to admit they got the way they did because of horrible eating habits and a lack of exercise.
I have enjoyed reading this discusstion and don't wish to side track it.

Ah, do I have a story...

When my lovely wife and I got married 18 years ago, our kind and well meant ecclesiastical authority told me to look at my mother in law...

So I turned and looked. I saw all 5' 9" and 180 lbs. of her. Then this kind man said, "That's what your wife will look like when she is that age."

I almost ran on the spot.

Fortunately, my wife did not follow in the genetic footsteps of my mother in law.

However, alhtough we are not doomed to look like our parents, many of us travel down that road. I skipped a generation, I don't look like my dad build wise, I look like my grandpa.

Jon

[Coach Gostnell]

"That's what your wife will look like when she is that age."



According to the "family story" - Cousin Herman, when meeting the bride (my mom), said essentially the same thing to my dad: "She'll be as wide as she is tall in a few years." Alas, for Cousin Herman, my mom overheard. :twisted: :twisted: He was never off her s**t list again. And she never gained more than a couple pounds her whole married life. (Stubborness can have its virtues.)