Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:26:07 -0400, Roger Zoul
:: wrote:
::
::: Bob in CT wrote:
::::: On Tue, 18 May 2004 14:42:23 -0400, jmk
::::: wrote:
:::::
:::::: On 5/18/2004 2:24 PM, Bob in CT wrote:
::::::
::::::: The problem with studies like this is that there are so many
::::::: variables. Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did,
::::::: as I think low carb is the way to go and low fat is a lie.
::::::
:::::: Bob, could you please explain this? Why do you think that low
:::::: fat is "a lie?" What do you mean by that? It certainly seems
:::::: to work for some.
::::::
:::::
::::: I think it does work for some. The problem is that I thought I
::::: was one of those people. I ate low fat for many years. I
::::: developed insulin resistance. Was that genetic predisposition or
::::: the low fat diet? I don't know, but I wouldn't hesitate to say
::::: the latter or at least a combination of the two. Moreover, I
::::: could eat pasta or
::::: brown rice and be hungry with an hour or even a half-hour of
::::: eating. Even if one believes that saturated fat is bad (which I
::::: no longer do), "low fat" has to include fat such as olive oil and
::::: nuts. These things sate me whereas true low fat products do not.
::::: So, I think low fat is a lie because it appears to cause or
::::: exacerbate insulin resistance and requires one to forego
::::: potentially useful fats.
:::::
:::
::: I think low-fat is a lie in the sense that it leads one to believe
::: that fat
::: is bad. In the same sense, low-carb is a lie if one comes to the
::: conclusion
::: that carbs are bad. Excess carbs are bad as is excess fat. Too
::: much of both is a killer combination. Excessive calorie intake
::: seems to be the real
::: problem.
:::
::: Low-fat is not a lie in the sense that if you reduce calories, you
::: lose fat.
::: In that same sense, low carb is not a lie.
:::
::: As a type 2 diabetic, I was able to lose fat on a low-fat diet. I
::: ate a lot
::: because I had appetitie. However, I also exercised like a maniac
::: (and hurt
::: myself), and as result, lost weight. On low carb, I don't have that
::: appetite, and hence don't have to go overboard on exercise. I feel
::: maintenance will be easier for me on low carb. Low carb doesn't
::: *seem* to support the same volume of exercise for me that low fat
::: did, but then again,
::: I'm more than 10 years older now while doing low carb.
:::
:::
:::
:::
::
:: I think if you can exercise enough, then low fat might not be bad.
:: I used to walk many miles per day while in college, bike 3-4 days a
:: week, lift weights, play raquetball, etc. Now, I exercise more in
:: terms of volume (I bike a lot more miles now, for instance) for
:: individual exercises, but my overall activity level in college was
:: much higher. For instance, I walked a ton in college but never walk
:: now. The problem comes in when you get hurt, as I did in an African
:: dance class (while biking and taking tennis lessons). My ankle
:: injury basically stopped all exercising. So, you're eating a ton of
:: carbs that have no where to go other than to increase your insulin
:: resistance. If you're Lance Armstrong, you can eat a low fat diet;
:: if you're suddenly an engineer with a desk job and an injury that
:: prevents you from exercising, you can't.

That pretty much is exactly my exerience...

::
:: I think the problem is that low fat is perceived to be "right." Fat
:: is bad, regardless of the type of fat. That's total BS and the
:: government deserves to be sued for forcing the "food pyramid" on us
:: without a shred of evidence supporting it.

Right. Which, imo, is why the government ought to get out of the business
being big brother. Same goes for insurance companies, but that isn't quite
as bad since we know they have a vested interest. Government should be
neutral and objective.

::
:: --
:: Bob in CT
:: Remove ".x" to reply