On the dangers of long term low-carb diets....

I found this gem on MFW...I thought it might be fun to chew on....

http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/23/jacques.html

This guy looks like he knows his stuff. Of course, knowing your stuff and
"knowing enough" isn't the same thing. Oftentimes knowing a little something
leads you to be afraid of something that upon further investigation isn't so
bad to begin with. In which case knowing nothing would have produced the
same behavior as knowing "a whole bunch" but knowing an intermediate amount
of information between the two extremes can lead to non-optimal, i.e.
misinformed behavior. I hope the issues he raises have cogent counterpoints.

-Chad

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
I found this gem on MFW...I thought it might be fun to chew on....

http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/23/jacques.html

The problem is that you can't really contest most of his points, as
they're anecdotal (sp?). For instance, he says that less than 2% of
people on low carb diets don't use caffiene. But if you were to look at
the overall population, what percentage doesn't get some type of caffiene
a day? And as for germs wiping out the indians because of their low carb
depressed immune systems, that's utter hogwash. Regardless of the
strength of an immune system, people die when exposed to new germs.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:35:33 -0700, Chad C. wrote:

This guy looks like he knows his stuff. Of course, knowing your stuff and
"knowing enough" isn't the same thing. Oftentimes knowing a little
something
leads you to be afraid of something that upon further investigation
isn't so
bad to begin with. In which case knowing nothing would have produced the
same behavior as knowing "a whole bunch" but knowing an intermediate
amount
of information between the two extremes can lead to non-optimal, i.e.
misinformed behavior. I hope the issues he raises have cogent
counterpoints.

-Chad

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
I found this gem on MFW...I thought it might be fun to chew on....

http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/23/jacques.html







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

a day? And as for germs wiping out the indians because of their low
carb
depressed immune systems, that's utter hogwash. Regardless of the
strength of an immune system, people die when exposed to new germs.

Speaking about it, I have not got flu or anything else since I started
LC in November - unlike my wife and children.

So I think my immune system, if anything, improved.

Mirek

Mirek Fidler burbled across the ether:
a day? And as for germs wiping out the indians because of their low
carb depressed immune systems, that's utter hogwash. Regardless of
the strength of an immune system, people die when exposed to new
germs.

Sigh. By the time Euro germs reached the Americas, most American
Indians were getting a large portion of their calories from the corn
societies which had spread outward from Central America in both
directions. If they weren't growing it themselves (mainly because of
climate-- the North/South American contenents are not conductive to wide
swaths of easy plant migration like Eurasia is), they traded for it. So
most Native Americans while having a lower carb diet than Eruos, weren't
"Neanderthin" low-- especially in the hardest hit areas where the corn
societies were.

Speaking about it, I have not got flu or anything else since I started
LC in November - unlike my wife and children.

Me too.

So I think my immune system, if anything, improved.

Definitely.

--
revek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June
2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please
"... the garment is named after (Bikini Atoll) on the basis that a
woman wearing a bikini would have the same effect on a man as an
H-bomb: He would fall to the ground screaming and clutching his melted
eyes before bursting into flames and being smashed by overpressure. Not
entirely clear why this was supposed to be a good thing." - James
Nicoll

Roger Zoul wrote:

I found this gem on MFW...I thought it might be fun to chew on....

http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/23/jacques.html

Well, I'd definitely disagree with some of his conclusions. And since he
has not provided references for any of this, it's hard to see where he's
coming from, isn't it? AFACT, his anectdotal data is coming primarily
from weight lifters or other atheletes, not necessarily a representative
cross-section of the population.

A couple things. I'm not familiar enough with glycoconjugation effects,
other than I suspect this is a double-edged sword. Glycation is often
not a good thing, from what I understand, although the author seems to
only address a few non-specific positive effects. He asserts that
lessened ability to form glycoconjugation products compromises the
immune system. However, whenever we've taken polls here on asdlc the
overwhelming consensus was that most people, if they found a difference,
got sick a lot less on LC than on higher carb diets. That certainly has
been the case for me. So maybe his reasoning re immune system
functioning is faulty.

I was a little put off by his description of the "cascade of hormonal
events" that LC eating supposedly causes. Release of epinephrine and
cortisol definitely are problems when you go hypoglycemic, which would
typically occur during the period of adaptation to a LC diet. So long as
adaptation brings BG levels into a normal range, I'm unaware of a lot of
excess epinephrine or cortisol in LC dieters. It is a problem for some
during induction, however. For people, like me, who tend to be
hypoglycemic, adding more carbs to the initial 20 seems to usually do
the trick, along with continued adaptation. Many people have far more
stable BG levels on reduced carb intake, which would seem to help reduce
the "cascade of hormonal effects".

As to the dangers of gluconeogenesis, he implies that your muscles will
be catabolized even when you're eating plenty of protein. But compared
to any other weight loss diet, low carb is the *most* muscle sparing.
Some muscle tissue loss will occur, however, on any diet. If anyone here
remembers Cakelady, who posted to asdlc a couple years ago, I found her
before and after pictures fascinating. She actually had two sets. The
"after" photo from when she lost weight eating a low fat low calorie
diet looked completely different, at the same goal weight, from the
"after" picture when she reached her goal on low-carb. In the former she
looked thin but a bit scrawny. In the latter, same weight, she looked
fit and healthy and strong. IIRC, there is a similar set of photos of a
male patient in "Protein Power" by the Eades.

The low vitamin E thing - how trivial. Just take your multivitamin, no
need to ingest a lot of grain.

Also, and more fundamentally, many of the supposed effects the author
notes aren't really long-term things. Yet he acknowledges that many of
the populations that habitually eat a low-CHO diet seem quite healthy in
early adulthood. You'd think some of those effects he discusses in the
article would have kicked in by then, such as depression, poor immune
functioning, etc. He's just very inconsistent. And I don't know if he's
even accurately characterizing these populations. Certainly he seems to
have missed the boat on the Native Americans, as others have already
pointed out.

Roger, although there are some things in this article I am not in a
position to eveluate, based on what I've stated above I'm just not
impressed. However, I do think that following the OWL progression and
adding in more carbs as vegetables, in particular, is a very good idea,
and it will dallow weight loss for the majority of people. Maintenance
can include even more veggies, fruits, and even modest amounts of
starchy vegetables and whole grains. We need to focus on health as well
as weight loss. But weight loss and BG control is a very important part
of health.

HG

Roger,

I think the article is onto something. The first time I low carbed, I felt
great for about two years and then in my 3rd year I seemed to "hit the wall"
ending up with no energy and feeling half dead. When I stopped low carbing,
my energy returned, but since I wasn't controlling my blood sugar well, I
gained weight and developed blood pressure problems.

This time it took 18 months to go from feeling great to feeling dead. By
January I noticed that any time I dropped the carbs into the truly low carb
range I was feeling more and more tired and was falling asleep at 7 and 8
pm, and feeling drained all day. I was not seeing low blood sugars, so that
wasn't the explanation. I went back on a strict 20 gram regimen for 3 weeks
two separate times and both times I felt so rotten at the end of the 3 weeks
that I decided something had to be wrong.

So I visited a wonderful endocrinologist who did some tests and found that I
was running surprisingly high fasting insulin levels for someone with near
normal blood sugars. I felt as if I was literally starving to death--not
hungry, just as if my cells had run out of steam. She suggested I try Met
again since low blood sugars are no longer a problem and if that doesn't
work, we'll try Avandia since that high fasting insulin is bad news for the
heart.

Since seeing her I have been boosting carbohydrates for the past 6 weeks
using a combination of Cinnamon, Metformin, and Precose to keep my blood
sugar under control. After about a week I started to feel like a plant that
had been watered after drying out. I stopped the metformin because of side
effects but still feel far more energetic. I'm doing a good job with the
blood sugar this time, hitting or exceeding the alt.support.diabetes
targets (140 at 2 hrs, 120 at one). The cinnamon has really helped control
post-meal blood sugars.

I'm watching calories carefully and have not gained any weight, in fact I
seem to have lost a pound or two even though I'm full of glycogen. I was 142
lbs with full glycogen this morning, for example. When not full of
glycogen, and eating at about 45 grams I was also 142 lbs after I added my
estrogen back in last fall.

I'm probably eating 80 - 100 grams a day maybe a little more, because I tend
to eat low carb for a couple meals and then have a high carb meal--though
my low carb is going very easy on the sat fat.

I forsee cycling back and forth from a low carb to a moderate carb regimen.
as what I'm probably going to have to do over the next years to keep
everything together.

My current thinking is that low carb is wonderful for weight loss but that
it might not be the best regimen for long term maintenance for everyone.
Someone quite knowledgeable about this (a low carb author) told me that some
people flourish on a regimen of powering their cells with FFAs and other
people don't. So if someone is one of the people who remain energized after
years of low carbing it is a great long term solution. If you find yourself
running out of steam, then it might be better to cycle.

-- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes,
hba1c 5.4.
Cut the carbs to respond to my email address!

Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes,
strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/

Looking for help controlling your blood sugar?
Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/...0Diagnosed.htm



"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
I found this gem on MFW...I thought it might be fun to chew on....

http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/23/jacques.html

Hannah Gruen wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: I found this gem on MFW...I thought it might be fun to chew on....
:::
::: http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/23/jacques.html
::
:: Well, I'd definitely disagree with some of his conclusions. And
:: since he has not provided references for any of this, it's hard to
:: see where he's coming from, isn't it? AFACT, his anectdotal data is
:: coming primarily from weight lifters or other atheletes, not
:: necessarily a representative cross-section of the population.
::
:: A couple things. I'm not familiar enough with glycoconjugation
:: effects, other than I suspect this is a double-edged sword.
:: Glycation is often not a good thing, from what I understand,
:: although the author seems to only address a few non-specific
:: positive effects. He asserts that lessened ability to form
:: glycoconjugation products compromises the immune system. However,
:: whenever we've taken polls here on asdlc the overwhelming consensus
:: was that most people, if they found a difference, got sick a lot
:: less on LC than on higher carb diets. That certainly has been the
:: case for me. So maybe his reasoning re immune system functioning is
:: faulty.

It certainly is based on my experience. However, being in a "hard"
discipline, I don't confess to knowing much about "soft" systems. If the
hardware ain't metal and can be described by some equations, it's outside my
bailiwick.

::
:: I was a little put off by his description of the "cascade of hormonal
:: events" that LC eating supposedly causes. Release of epinephrine and
:: cortisol definitely are problems when you go hypoglycemic, which
:: would typically occur during the period of adaptation to a LC diet.
:: So long as adaptation brings BG levels into a normal range, I'm
:: unaware of a lot of excess epinephrine or cortisol in LC dieters. It
:: is a problem for some during induction, however. For people, like
:: me, who tend to be hypoglycemic, adding more carbs to the initial 20
:: seems to usually do the trick, along with continued adaptation. Many
:: people have far more stable BG levels on reduced carb intake, which
:: would seem to help reduce the "cascade of hormonal effects".

And what about those who exercise while on LC? By his theory, we'd be full
of cortisol that would definitely be a bad thing.
::
:: As to the dangers of gluconeogenesis, he implies that your muscles
:: will be catabolized even when you're eating plenty of protein.

Well, if he implied that he's definitely full of it. Even bodybuilders know
that.

But
:: compared to any other weight loss diet, low carb is the *most*
:: muscle sparing. Some muscle tissue loss will occur, however, on any
:: diet. If anyone here remembers Cakelady, who posted to asdlc a
:: couple years ago, I found her before and after pictures fascinating.
:: She actually had two sets. The "after" photo from when she lost
:: weight eating a low fat low calorie diet looked completely
:: different, at the same goal weight, from the "after" picture when
:: she reached her goal on low-carb. In the former she looked thin but
:: a bit scrawny. In the latter, same weight, she looked fit and
:: healthy and strong. IIRC, there is a similar set of photos of a male
:: patient in "Protein Power" by the Eades.

I lost 100 lbs on low fat, then several years later, lost 100 lbs on LC. At
about the same weight, I was smaller after losing on LC (based on wearing
the same clothes), due mainly to greater muscle mass.

::
:: The low vitamin E thing - how trivial. Just take your multivitamin,
:: no need to ingest a lot of grain.

Right.

::
:: Also, and more fundamentally, many of the supposed effects the author
:: notes aren't really long-term things. Yet he acknowledges that many
:: of the populations that habitually eat a low-CHO diet seem quite
:: healthy in early adulthood. You'd think some of those effects he
:: discusses in the article would have kicked in by then, such as
:: depression, poor immune functioning, etc. He's just very
:: inconsistent. And I don't know if he's even accurately
:: characterizing these populations. Certainly he seems to have missed
:: the boat on the Native Americans, as others have already pointed out.
::
:: Roger, although there are some things in this article I am not in a
:: position to eveluate, based on what I've stated above I'm just not
:: impressed.

Me either, but it is wise, imo, to consider what others say -- just to see
if there is some new lines of thought that might be important.

However, I do think that following the OWL progression and
:: adding in more carbs as vegetables, in particular, is a very good
:: idea, and it will dallow weight loss for the majority of people.
:: Maintenance can include even more veggies, fruits, and even modest
:: amounts of starchy vegetables and whole grains. We need to focus on
:: health as well as weight loss. But weight loss and BG control is a
:: very important part of health.

Right. And I point out that no one is saying that carbs are evil or that
they are bad...the problem as been mainly one of excess carbohydrate (on top
of excess calories) and sedentary liftstyle.

Hannah Gruen wrote:

Well, I'd definitely disagree with some of his conclusions. And since he
has not provided references for any of this, it's hard to see where he's
coming from, isn't it?

That was my impression... a bunch of pseudo-scientific reasoning without
any data.

I could write something similar that made a good-sounding argument for
getting enough rocks in your diet.

--
As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy
to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has
to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value.
Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets.
-- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food

Jenny wrote:

I'm probably eating 80 - 100 grams a day maybe a little more, because I tend
to eat low carb for a couple meals and then have a high carb meal--though
my low carb is going very easy on the sat fat.

Jenny, I follow your experience and find your insight and the info you
provide valuable in general, but here I question your conclusion. 80-100
grams of carb, which is what you say you're doing now, *is* a low-carb
diet. Sure, it's not super low-carb, but it is low carb.

So... I don't see how you come to the conclusion that the guy in the
article who says low-carb is bad for the long-term is right, given that
you seem to have found a low-carb solution to your problems. I mean,
that article said that anything under 175 grams is low-carb - and he
found that bad for *everyone*. So... he doesn't agree with you even if
you're saying you agree with him.

--
As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy
to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has
to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value.
Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets.
-- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food