Low carb diets

Lyle McDonald wrote in message .. .
pete wrote:

Lyle McDonald wrote in message .. .
Lyle McDonald wrote:

still don't have it handy. It was one of those things that I saw
referenced in a review paper (probably on insulin sensitivity) and never
bothered to actually look up.

Amazingly, I managed to track it down on Pubmed.

Lyle

***
Diabetes. 1990 Jul;39(7):775-81.

Metabolic effects of reducing rate of glucose ingestion by single bolus versus
continuous sipping.

Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Ocana AM, Vuksan V, Cunnane SC, Jenkins M, Wong GS,
Singer W, Bloom SR, Blendis LM, et al.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.

Modifying the rate of absorption has been proposed as a therapeutic
principle of
specific relevance to diabetes. To demonstrate clearly the metabolic benefits
that might result from reducing the rate of nutrient delivery, nine healthy
volunteers took 50 g glucose in 700 ml water on two occasions: over 5-10 min
(bolus) and at a constant rate over 3.5 h (sipping). Despite similar 4-h blood
glucose areas, large reductions were seen in serum insulin (54 +/- 10%,
P less
than 0.001) and C-peptide (47 +/- 12%, P less than 0.01) areas after sipping,
together with lower gastric inhibitory polypeptide and enteroglucagon
levels and
urinary catecholamine output. There was also prolonged suppression of plasma
glucagon, growth hormone, and free-fatty acid (FFA) levels after sipping,
whereas these levels rose 3-4 h after the glucose bolus. An intravenous glucose
tolerance test at 4 h demonstrated a 48 +/- 10% (P less than 0.01) more rapid
decline in blood glucose (Kg) after sipping than after the bolus. Furthermore,
FFA and total branched-chain amino acid levels as additional markers of insulin
action were lower over this period despite similar absolute levels of insulin
and C-peptide. These findings indicate that prolonging the rate of glucose
absorption enhances insulin economy and glucose disposal.

I think it's pretty clear that there is sufficient evidence that the
overwhelming majority of people fare better on a low carb diet,

define majority and better.
For obese/insulin resistant folks, no doubt that lowering carbs is
beneficial from a number of standpoints. If that the majority at this
point? Maybe, maybe not.


I would define majority as most americans who are not involved in a
sport or exercise program using high volume (bodybuilder w/ high
volume trainer, endurance athlete, etc). The average american who
spends most of their time on their ass when they're not at work, and
just wants to improve health and body composition. This I consider is
the overwhelming majority of americans.

I would define low carb as 100g carbs or less.

To define better, in the sense that again, in the majority of cases
(not all), but most people find it much, much easier to control
calories with a low carb diet. This, as you know, is b/c a variety of
reasons. Now, I know u have argued in those that do not get good
calorie control w/ high fat foods, they will overeat. Yes, but there
is another approach that I believe is applicable, overeat protein and
keep fat somewhat lower. This is of course assuming that one is NOT
counting calories, which realistically most people WILL NOT do. And
all the studies showing free eating w/ no specific control of calories
are showing superior results with a low carb diet. To me this shows an
overall superiority to low carb diets from a practical standpoint b/c
as you well know, most people will not strictly count calories. I
personally have done this many times, and still do on occasion, but
i'm not the typical person or dieter. I'm really anal retentive about
such things.

Another aspect that makes it better is like you said b4, it makes
getting sufficient protein and EFA's much easier, as most of these
foods have significant quantities (of protein at least), still gotta
supplement some Cod Liver or Fish Oil.

Better in the sense that for many people, they enjoy higher fat foods
vs. "clean" carbs and super-lean proteins. If having to choose between
the two, most people I know would choose a steak and broccoli w/
garlic and olive oil vs. a baked potato and skinless chicken breast.
Of course this is grossly simplifying food choices, but for ME and
many people (not all), these moderate-high fat foods taste better than
rabbit food.

Because almost all americans have been raised on processed
carbs/sugars to some degree, it has been argued that almost everyone
has some degree of insulin resistance. It seems that all evidence so
far shows that blood sugar maintenance is superior on a low carb diet.
And insulin levels are lowered as well. Overall blood profiles improve
dramatically, for most. I'm sure the resultant weight loss is a big
part of this, perhaps the only part, but these results always seem to
be correlated with a reduced carbohydrate intake.

I have also read that carbs generally have a role in raising
triglyceride levels in the blood, and by lowering carb intake these
levels almost always lower.

Dr. Wolfgang Lutz has a book, "Life Without Bread", documenting his
approach to low carbs and success with thousands of patients he's
treated over a 40yr period, using a low carb diet. The results he has
achieved for a variety of health conditions is quite impressive,
despite the fact the book has errors.

It can be argued that our evolutionary diet "Paleolithic Diet" for at
least some part of the human race consisted of a high protein,
moderate to high fat, low to moderate carb diet of no starches.

From the study I posted above, it seems that glucose places a certain
amount of oxidative stress on the body, resulting in reactive oxygen
species (ROS), implicated in many diseases. Comparatively, lipid
peroxidases are caused mainly by PUFA (which are known to be highly
reactive), but still are easily dealt w/ by small amts. of
antioxidants, such as vit. c, and E. a fat soluble vitamin.

A question is how low carbs have to go (i.e. you need to define
low-carb). I doubt a complete removal of all carbs is necessary.
MOderation would work fine in *most* cases IMO.


For many people moderation would probably be best. I can only speak
for myself, an obsessive dieter who is very strict about how I eat and
concious overall of my health. For me, I really do need to remove all
carbs from my diet. Seriously, perhaps it is only psychological (i'm
extreme in that sense, all or nothing), but when I have a small amount
of carbs, I almost ALWAYS develop an immediate addiction and go on an
all-out carb eating binge. It's almost beyond my control. Right now
i've eaten no carb-specific foods (aside from some veggies and nuts)
for over a month now, no problem, been strict, yada yada. But every
time i've eaten some starches, sweets, etc., a switch goes off and I
lose control. So for me, I either have none or all. Of course this is
just me. But i've talked to others like this, so I know i'm not the
only one.

Now I understand everyone is not diabetic, but many, including Dr. Ron
Rosedale, Dr. Serrano, even Charles Poliquin treats everyone like they
are prediabetic, and gets most athletes insulin levels under control.
It seems a combined low carb diet, w/ some veggies and supplemented
antioxidants is going to be a superior method for all but extreme
athletes.

With the exception of endurance athletes, carb needs for most are vastly
overstated. yeah, a cyclist doing hours on bike every day nees a
****pile of carbs. So does a runner or rower or what have you. Even
the mid distance athletes, who are doing a lot of work near or above
lactate threshold probably need a lot.

a strength athlete is not burning a ton of carbs, neither is a
bodybuilder unless his volume is really, really high. I did the math in
my first book, for every 2 sets (assuming about 45 second set length),
you need a whopping 5 grams of carbs to replenish glycogen. So a 24 set
workout means you need all of 60 grams to replenish the glycogen you used.

Add to that ~100 to avoid ketosis (if such is your goal) and you end up
with a whopping 160 grams of carbs per day to sustain basic function and
exercise. Maybe 1 g/lb or a little bit less.

To suggest 4-5 g/lb (8-10 g/kg) as for endurance athletes is retarded.

Lyle

"OmegaZero2003" wrote in message news:
"Elzinator" wrote in message...

"On a superficial level, many would consider it intuitive to
make the statement that exercise in general is a good thing.
However, when the layers of the exercise onion are peeled, the
answer to the question of how exactly at the mechanistic level
is exercise beneficial for human health does not seem that
obvious to the general scientific community, although there is
extensive literature at a descriptive level documenting the
precise benefits of exercise for many aspects of human health.

If, peeling those layers even further, we then consider the
notion that gene selection during the eons of human evolution
was likely influenced by physical activity to support human
health, we would suspect the reaction would be one of great
skepticism.

Hmmm - the selection-for mechanisms have been theorized to include a way to
reward both curiosity and activity given the nature of the nature most of
homo sapiens' ancestors faced. Even the theory of neuronal group selection
is based on (appropriate) activation upon perturbation (sensory modalities,
motor skills etc.)

I forgot to mention in my previous response that, if you are
interested, I have a few very good papers (pdfs)on evolutionary
biology (and evo-devo) that would be applicable to this topic. Not so
much directed in general. The other thread got me going on this
(evobio) again (a hobby of mine A buddy in Austin and I talk this
stuff for hours.

Booth's recent paper extends the basics of evolutoinary biology to the
context of diet and activity. Booth rocks.

On 20 Dec 2003 00:25:22 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" wrote:

Elzinator wrote:

"OmegaZero2003" wrote...

This is very similar to the issues facing cancer
researchers. Three very different mechanisms/theories using
separate processes all interacting to produce the endpoint.

Biological systems are more complex than most realize:
feedback loops, negative and positive regulators, redundant
and overlapping pathways, etc.

And, they're all nonlinear. That is, they are rife with
thresholds and saturation effects. This makes them very, very
(very) complicated, but has a lot to do with their effectiveness
and robustness.

Very true, but that's part of the challenge.
I'm trying to talk someone (computational systems geek) into modeling
bodyweight homeostasis.

He's reluctant.



It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

On 19 Dec 2003 18:09:05 -0800, (pete) wrote:

Better in the sense that for many people, they enjoy higher fat foods
vs. "clean" carbs and super-lean proteins. If having to choose between
the two, most people I know would choose a steak and broccoli w/
garlic and olive oil vs. a baked potato and skinless chicken breast.
Of course this is grossly simplifying food choices, but for ME and
many people (not all), these moderate-high fat foods taste better than
rabbit food.

While there is evidence for an evolutionary preference for fatty foods
(taste receptors, etc), not all share the same preference. I happen to
like rabbit food, even before I was diagnosed diabetic, I ate salads
frequently. I also put protein on them in the form of fish, chicken,
beef, etc. And I make my own salad dressing with olive and fish oil. I
can even add some carbs in the form of cheese or croutons. Its a
complete meal offering protein, roughage, low-GI carbs, n-3 FAs,
monounsaturated FAs, saturated FAs, phyonutrients, vitamins and
minerals. And I like the taste.

Guys are too macho to admit they eat salads........


Because almost all americans have been raised on processed
carbs/sugars to some degree, it has been argued that almost everyone
has some degree of insulin resistance.

I don't agree. There is a threshold where insulin tissues can be
saturated, but a healthy individual would have to eat a buttload of
carbs in one bolus. Not considering congenital defects in the insulin
system, insulin resistance is largely acquired. We produce insulin for
a reason.

It seems that all evidence so
far shows that blood sugar maintenance is superior on a low carb diet.
And insulin levels are lowered as well. Overall blood profiles improve
dramatically, for most.

If you are inactive, yes. But then a hypercaloric diet with high fat
intake can induce insulin resistance, too. And TG levels are high.

I'm sure the resultant weight loss is a big
part of this, perhaps the only part, but these results always seem to
be correlated with a reduced carbohydrate intake.

The two are difficult to dissociate and the dissociation may diverge
at a lower bodyfat level.

I have also read that carbs generally have a role in raising
triglyceride levels in the blood, and by lowering carb intake these
levels almost always lower.

You have to consider other dietary factors as well. Not just carb
intake.


It can be argued that our evolutionary diet "Paleolithic Diet" for at
least some part of the human race consisted of a high protein,
moderate to high fat, low to moderate carb diet of no starches.

From the study I posted above, it seems that glucose places a certain
amount of oxidative stress on the body, resulting in reactive oxygen
species (ROS), implicated in many diseases. Comparatively, lipid
peroxidases are caused mainly by PUFA (which are known to be highly
reactive), but still are easily dealt w/ by small amts. of
antioxidants, such as vit. c, and E. a fat soluble vitamin.

Not really. With a high intake of PUFAs, a high intake of antioxidant
must also be considered (check the research on Medline). The primary
issue with glucose is a different form of reactive species stress
called glycation, specifically the Malliard Reaction (all budding
O-chemists and food chemists are familiar with this). Mere antioxidant
supplementation will not prevent this reaction. Its a nightmare
reaction to memorize, but it is complex and involves carbohydrates,
metals and proteins. It is what stiffens arteries and induces
'yellowing' connective tissue. It is the bane of diabetics, but it is
also involved in the general process of our aging bodies (in
diabetics, this process is accelerated).


A question is how low carbs have to go (i.e. you need to define
low-carb). I doubt a complete removal of all carbs is necessary.
MOderation would work fine in *most* cases IMO.

That is highly individual, and changes depending on your age, body fat
mass, even gender (males typically have higher carb oxidation).

A simple method would be to monitor your own blood glucose levels in
response to varying conditions. Some researchers are now suggesting
that the average health range for BGs should be lowered based on the
etiology of CVD. One author suggests that the top threshold be in the
90's rather than 110-130. My target (Dr. 'prescribed') is 74
(fasting) to 86 (in between meals) with 90 as the top. Over 110, I
have symptoms; it's too high.

Carb intake also depends on activity levels. Even type of activity
(intensity and duration).

For many people moderation would probably be best. I can only speak
for myself, an obsessive dieter who is very strict about how I eat and
concious overall of my health. For me, I really do need to remove all
carbs from my diet. Seriously, perhaps it is only psychological (i'm
extreme in that sense, all or nothing), but when I have a small amount
of carbs, I almost ALWAYS develop an immediate addiction and go on an
all-out carb eating binge. It's almost beyond my control.

At least you are self-aware of it and man/woman (I don't know which
you are) enough to admit it instead of rationalizing with an excuse.
That I respect, the other I don't.


It's not enough to just live. You've got to have something to live for.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:11:41 -0500, Elzinator
wrote:


Guys are too macho to admit they eat salads........

Call it roughage. Sounds more macho that way.

And anything that adds a competive aspect to it would help, too.

---
Proton Soup

"If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and
how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?"
-Saddam Hussein

On 19 Dec 2003 16:08:11 -0800, (Elzinator)
wrote:

Biological systems are more complex than most realize: feedback loops,
negative and positive regulators, redundant and overlapping pathways,
etc. If you look at some of the signaling models (e.g. on Science
Signaling Knowledge Gateway website), they look like a street map of
NYC. I would like to see interactive models on the website (SKG is
attempting to do that).

You got a URL for that SSKG? I've got a little more than a passive
interest in the subject. When I's in school, I did get to take a
couple of quarters of physiology (and learned it wasn't for me - not
the best student). We used a textbook by Guyton, but not a good one.
We were told that the older editions had a lot of feedback diagrams in
it, which I would have loved to see, given that my interest at the
time was control systems. But because of complaints from bio-geeks,
they removed all trace of system diagrams. Best I can remember, the
only positive feedback system was one used during childbirth, where
the head pressing down on the cervix causes more contractions, which
increases pressure, yadayadayada...

However, they are only as good as our existing technology and data.
More is continually added, and the models change. As one visiting
scientist commented, models only allow us to predict responses. The
same can be said for a generalized response to dietary interventions.

Ja, people don't like being controlled. But there are certainly
plenty of times that they are, like with patients, or soldiers.

---
Proton Soup

"If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and
how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?"
-Saddam Hussein

On 20 Dec 2003 00:25:22 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" wrote:

Elzinator wrote:

"OmegaZero2003" wrote...

This is very similar to the issues facing cancer
researchers. Three very different mechanisms/theories using
separate processes all interacting to produce the endpoint.

Biological systems are more complex than most realize:
feedback loops, negative and positive regulators, redundant
and overlapping pathways, etc.

And, they're all nonlinear. That is, they are rife with
thresholds and saturation effects. This makes them very, very
(very) complicated, but has a lot to do with their effectiveness
and robustness.

Yeah, but that is true for all real systems. Overdrive an amplifier,
you'll get clipping. Underdrive a hydroelectric facility, the dam
will overflow. Some are even nonlinear within their useful range, but
we can deal with that, too.

---
Proton Soup

"If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and
how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?"
-Saddam Hussein

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:29:22 -0500, Elzinator
wrote:

On 20 Dec 2003 00:25:22 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" wrote:

Elzinator wrote:

"OmegaZero2003" wrote...

This is very similar to the issues facing cancer
researchers. Three very different mechanisms/theories using
separate processes all interacting to produce the endpoint.

Biological systems are more complex than most realize:
feedback loops, negative and positive regulators, redundant
and overlapping pathways, etc.

And, they're all nonlinear. That is, they are rife with
thresholds and saturation effects. This makes them very, very
(very) complicated, but has a lot to do with their effectiveness
and robustness.

Very true, but that's part of the challenge.
I'm trying to talk someone (computational systems geek) into modeling
bodyweight homeostasis.

He's reluctant.

Well, he probably realizes that it's one of those projects that would
never end.

---
Proton Soup

"If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and
how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?"
-Saddam Hussein

"Doug Freese" wrote in message
...


Donovan Rebbechi wrote:


Being nice is optional (though generally frowned upon in
misc.fitness.weights
;-), but he does know a lot about weight loss nutrition, and it pays to
be
aware of that.

Since I don't subscribe to MFW he genius has yet to show up.

That's one option, can you think of the other yourself?

/Jacob

Outsourced wrote:

Lyle McDonald at wrote:

a strength athlete is not burning a ton of carbs, neither is a
bodybuilder unless his volume is really, really high. I did the math in
my first book, for every 2 sets (assuming about 45 second set length),
you need a whopping 5 grams of carbs to replenish glycogen. So a 24 set
workout means you need all of 60 grams to replenish the glycogen you used.

What do you think of the Zone advice that athletes should increase their
monounsaturated fats in order to get the added calories and energy they need
and not increase carbs?

Depends.

Lyle