If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article: Low-fat? Low-carbs? Answering best diet question
On Mar 12, 10:45*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , wrote in part: * (Many parts snipped, mostly because responding would be largely repetiton of stuff I already said to points that I find largely repeated) Funny how you seem to think highly of low fat and have no problems with it's results. * I am not claiming that low fat is better than low calorie balanced diet, except for noting that the 8 year study on 49,000 women found a major decrease in colon polyps from replacing fats with whole grains and fruits and veggies. That's obviously not the point. Low fat, Low Cal, I don't care. What I want to know is why you think these are OK, while LC is deemed a failure because it didn't result in a reduction in obesity in America during it's brief peak in popularity a few years back. These other approaches have been the gold standards for weight loss for decades. Endorsed by the media, health authorities, the govt, the FDA food pyramid, teaching in school, shelves full of products designed to be low cal or low fat, etc. So, how is it after 3 decades of obesity gettin much worse, they get a pass but LC is deemed a failure? SNIP * I still have yet to see the media bashing low carb more than low fat.. You really are living in your own universe. The only negative that has come out regarding low fat that I've seen that was widely reported in the media was the Nurses Health Study that we've been discussing. And I would not call that bashing. All they did was report it and how it throws into doubt some of the alleged benefits of low fat. It was a very worthy story, because it was a major longer term study. It had it's run of a few days or weeks. Then it was back to business as usual. Now let's compare that to what goes on with LC, which is indeed bashing. The media constantly misrepresents what LC is, either through total ignorance or intentionally. Here's a sampling of what is common, which I'm sure others here in the LC newsgroup can verify: LC is zero carb. LC is all red meat. LC means no vegetables. LC is no fruit. LC is no fiber. Then they have some sound bites from a dietitian stating that LC is unhealthy and unsafe. And then they show a fridge full of pork chops and butter or a plate with all meat. I've never seen any of that with low fat. In fact, the mainstream media is still very positive about LF and LC while very negative about LC. Then we have all the negative publicity heaped on the late Dr. Atkins before and after he died. There were people out trying to get his medical license pulled because they didn't like LC. I have never seen anything approaching that with Dr. Pritkin. * No worse than when I tried targeting specifically carbs for reduction. Well, if you just rolled your own plan and lowered carbs from 300g a day to 200g a day, I'm not surprised. * That's another frustration many of us have. * People judge LC a failure without ever trying to do it correctly. *I'll give you credit for one thing. * At least you didn't say you tried Atkins. * I certainly tried a lot less than 200 grams of carbs per day, like even 100, and got slowed down on my bike more than by targeting other forms of calories for reduction. As I suspected. What you did was carb reduction, not LC. You didn't follow a plan, like Atkins. With carbs at 100g a day or above, I'm not at all surprised that you didn't notice any hunger suppression or other positive results. That's why with Atkins you start out at 20g per day for 2 weeks. It's during those first few days when your appetite greatly diminishes and cravings for foods go away. You wouldn't be at 100g a day until the end of Atkins, if even then, when you're at your goal weight and in maintenance. * *With LC you are satiated and that is the huge difference that makes LC work for so many of us. * I go low calorie and after 2 or 3 days I don't get hunger pangs - just feel wired and slowed down, but low carb did that even worse to me. So, what LC plan did you follow? * Since reducing carbs gives me *worse* results than reducing other forms of calories, and everyone I know who had any Atkins books did not get better off as a result, the Atkins Foundation and for that matter whoever is responsible for South Beach are surely not going to get one red cent from me for their books! Yes, better to curse the darkness than light a candle. They do have libraries you know. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article: Low-fat? Low-carbs? Answering best diet question
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article: Low-fat? Low-carbs? Answering best diet question
On Mar 14, 10:55*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , wrote: On Mar 12, 10:45*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , wrote in part: * (Many parts snipped, mostly because responding would be largely repetiton of stuff I already said to points that I find largely repeated) Funny how you seem to think highly of low fat and have no problems with it's results. * I am not claiming that low fat is better than low calorie balanced diet, except for noting that the 8 year study on 49,000 women found a major decrease in colon polyps from replacing fats with whole grains and fruits and veggies. That's obviously not the point. * Low fat, Low Cal, I don't care. What I want to know is why you think these are OK, while LC is deemed a failure because it didn't result in a reduction in obesity in America during it's brief peak in popularity a few years back. * Because my experience is that low carb fails and low calorie does not.. We're not talking about your personal experience. We're talking about the slam you made against LC saying that since it didn't result in any reduction in Americans waistlines means it doesn't work. Low calorie, which has been promoted and certainly tried by a lot more than LC ever was hasn't worked either. So the point is why you choose to slam one, but not the other. Especially when low fat and low calorie have been so actively promoted precisely during the decades when Americans got far more obese, while LC only had a brief period of being anywhere near as popular. In fact, right now, low fat and low cal are still being promoted by all the mainstream health authorities, govt, media, etc. LC is not. *These other approaches have been the gold standards for weight loss for decades. * *Endorsed by the media, health authorities, the govt, the FDA food pyramid, teaching in school, shelves full of products designed to be low cal or low fat, etc. * So, how is it after 3 decades of obesity gettin much worse, they get a pass but LC is deemed a failure? * I saw people gaining/keeping weight on low carb more than on low calorie. Per the above comments, it doesn't explain how you claim LC is a failure because it didn't result in less obesity in the overall population. By that standard, low fat is a failure 10X the size because it's been the gold standard for 3 decades, while LC has not. SNIP * I still have yet to see the media bashing low carb more than low fat. You really are living in your own universe. * The only negative that has come out regarding low fat that I've seen that was widely reported in the media was the Nurses Health Study that we've been discussing. And I would not call that bashing. * All they did was report it and how it throws into doubt some of the alleged benefits of low fat. * It was a very worthy story, because it was a major longer term study. *It had it's run of a few days or weeks. * Then it was back to business as usual. Now let's compare that to what goes on with LC, which is indeed bashing. * The media constantly misrepresents what LC is, either through total ignorance or intentionally. *Here's a sampling of what is common, which I'm sure others here in the LC newsgroup can verify: * LC is zero carb. *LC is all red meat. *LC means no vegetables. *LC is no fruit. *LC is no fiber. * All I ever see along these in lines is occaisonally saying low on vegetables. Like your experience with how popular LC ever was, how long the craze status lasted, how many LC vs LF specific products are on supermarket shelves, etc, your experience on how the media treats LC is vastly different from mine. *Then they have some sound bites from a dietitian stating that LC is unhealthy and unsafe. * I still seem to think something so unbalanced as reduction of carbs to less than 100 grams per day is not optimum for health. *I also hear Atkins fans and fans of low carb in general saying I can eat all the meat I want, all the faty meat I want... OK, so at least you're not saying the media doesn't trot out some numb nuts dietitian to slam LC. And the statement about eating all the meat you want, all the fatty meat, is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. That's a good example of what the media does and how people buy into it. The actual Atkins plan is to eat only enough until you no longer feel hungry. That is very different than eating all the meat you want. *And then they show a fridge full of pork chops and butter or a plate with all meat. *I've never seen any of that with low fat. * In fact, the mainstream media is still very positive about LF and LC while very negative about LC. * I saw less positivity of Low fat than of low carb since 2000, including a report in the mainstream media last year on some study claiming low carb achieved more weight loss than low fat, Mediterrainean, and some other diet. *And since 1997 or so enough sound bites here and there saying carbs are what cause weight gain. Sure, I'd agree there is less positive on LF. They've turned the volume down from 100db to 90db. And they've turned the positive volume up on LC from 0 to 10db. That's what I see. And what you see as a big plus for LC, is actually just a news story on a research report that ran for a day or two. On the other hand, if you look at the media, especially TV, they have a lot of time spent on what is not news. An example would be hauling in the dietitian or a Dr. for a segment on how to best lose weight, how to eat healthy. And in all those, I rarely if evert see LC receive an endorsement. In fact, what usually occurs, is following a report like the above, where a study showed LC resulted in more weight loss, they trot out that dietitian to rag on about how even if you lose weight, it's unhealthy, your chol is going to go up, and you should be limiting fat, etc. Then we have all the negative publicity heaped on the late Dr. Atkins before and after he died. * There were people out trying to get his medical license pulled because they didn't like LC. * * I have never seen anything approaching that with Dr. Pritkin. * I have seen very little promotion of Pritikin. *This is the first time I even heard his name mentioned in misc.consumers, a newsgroup I have subscribed to since 1997 or so. What does that have to do with the fact that he's a big champion of LF and no one set out to destroy him, while there were many out to get Atkins? Including the group that illegally obtained his medical records and spread the very lie about Atkins that you repeated in this thread? * No worse than when I tried targeting specifically carbs for reduction. Well, if you just rolled your own plan and lowered carbs from 300g a day to 200g a day, I'm not surprised. * That's another frustration many of us have. * People judge LC a failure without ever trying to do it correctly. *I'll give you credit for one thing. * At least you didn't say you tried Atkins. * I certainly tried a lot less than 200 grams of carbs per day, like even 100, and got slowed down on my bike more than by targeting other forms of calories for reduction. As I suspected. *What you did was carb reduction, not LC. * You didn't follow a plan, like Atkins. * With carbs at 100g a day or above, I'm not at all surprised that you didn't notice any hunger suppression or other positive results. *That's why with Atkins you start out at 20g per day for 2 weeks. *It's during those first few days when your appetite greatly diminishes and cravings for foods go away. * You wouldn't be at 100g a day until the end of Atkins, if even then, when you're at your goal weight and in maintenance. * The "low fat" diet that the government promotes is merely trying us to have 30% or less of our caloric intake from fat. * If I consume 30% of 2,000 calories per day from carbs, that's about 150 grams of carbs per day. * If I consume 25% of calories from fat and 2,000 calories per day, you call that low fat, but if I consume 25% of calories from carbs and 2,000 calories from carbs, you call that *not* low carb? *Did I get that right? 25% of 2000 calories from carbs = 125g of carb. That level MIGHT be LC for someone in maintenance phase of Atkins. Most are less than that. * And if carbs are bad, why should reduction from 300 grams per day to 100 grams per day with same calorie intake be ineffective or even in my experience counterproductive? *(impairs my ability to burn calories as much as I usually do) Atkins specifically tailored his LC plan based on decades of experience helping patients to lose weight. The purpose of going to 20g and limiting the food choices you have in that first two weeks is to get you into ketosis where your appetite drops and cravings disappear. You don't go around feeling hungry. The point here is you say you tried LC and it didn't work. What you actually tried was a reduced carb diet and I'm sure I'm not the only one here that isn't surprised that it did not work. * *With LC you are satiated and that is the huge difference that makes LC work for so many of us. * I go low calorie and after 2 or 3 days I don't get hunger pangs - just feel wired and slowed down, but low carb did that even worse to me. So, what LC plan did you follow? * Since reducing carbs gives me *worse* results than reducing other forms of calories, and everyone I know who had any Atkins books did not get better off as a result, the Atkins Foundation and for that matter whoever is responsible for South Beach are surely not going to get one red cent from me for their books! Yes, better to curse the darkness than light a candle. * They do have libraries you know. * I have even spent a few days trying to live on nothing but meat, nuts, largely-starch-free veggies, and stuff without calories. *I could not ride my bike much faster than I did when eating nothing with calories, and got almost as wired and slept even worse than when eating nothing with calories, and lost weight much more slowly than I did when eating nothing with calories. * Since I have relatives who bought Atkins books and a year or two later said low carb only works for a week or two and after that the body adapts to get everything it can from protein and fat calories and make those count for maintenance of body fat as much as ever from carbs, I am quite skeptical. I'm quite skeptical that your relatives know anything about the biology of how the body "adapts." It's more likely that they did what you did. Claimed they were doing LC, in their case Atkins, without ever bothering to read a book and figure out what exactly it is they were supposed to do. * Makes me see highly of a friend's advice - "Follow The Money". *Not only the Atkins Foundation, but also specific agricultural subsets as well as even agriculture in general. *"Low Carb" not only benefits beef, pork, poultry and dairy, but also benefits grain farmers gaining from selling grain through inefficient 4-legged/feathered middlemen who benefit from a notion that people should not eat grains directly (other than "low carb" breads such as the one whose nutritional label has "servings per container" much more than the number of slices). Now you're starting to sound like a PETA hack. Where's the list of all the interests that low fat benefits? Who makes all those low fat products that the supermarket shelves are full of? * And after that, a close friend of mine had a heart attack at age in upper 40's while mildly overweight and having a diet excessive in calories by "government advice", especially in fat and protein. Huh? Which govt was he listening to? Certainly not the US one over the last few decades. Curious again that fat and protein get blamed, but carbs get a free pass. *He cut all forms of calories, fat more than others. *His carb intake dropped mildly and still averages 200 grams a day or so, maybe a little more. *He got his weight down from about 170 to about 140 (slightly below-average height and mildly smaller-than-average "skeleton frame" ["my words"]). * His cardiologist says that he is exceptionally good at effective lifestyle change. *The cardiologist credits 80% of the total cholesterol drop to the statin drug (I suspect as a result of Big Pharma sales pitch efforts; I suspect the truth is closer to 65-70% in this particular case), but this friend's LDL/HDL ratio improved significantly from diet and exercise even according to the cardiologist, and this friend's triglycerides improved very notably and without help from the statin. Let's assume all that is true. If you look at the studies that have been done recently on LC, you'd see they had lowered trigs, improved LDL/HDL ratios too. Countless people have reported those results in the LC newsgroup over the years. So, what makes LF so great and LC so bad? * If you can explain with science citable with posted links (as opposed to what I call "diet books") why reducing carb intake from 300 to 125 grams per day or whatever is supposed to be ineffective while "carbs are bad", I will "try better" in late May - when my need to be a "professional cyclist" takes a seasonal decrease. If you're really interested, you can do your own research. I'm not to keen on helping those with such closed minds that they can't obtain an Atkins book and read it. And why would you want to anyway? If you're a professional cyclist, not overweight, and happy with what your eating, just keep doing it. You're probably one of the lucky people, with the right genes that can eat a wide variety of foods, percentages, etc and do fine. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article: Low-fat? Low-carbs? Answering best diet question
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article: Low-fat? Low-carbs? Answering best diet question
On Mar 17, 5:12*am, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , wrote: On Mar 14, 10:55*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , wrote: On Mar 12, 10:45*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , wrote in part: * (Many parts snipped, mostly because responding would be largely repetiton of stuff I already said to points that I find largely repeated) Funny how you seem to think highly of low fat and have no problems with it's results. * I am not claiming that low fat is better than low calorie balanced diet, except for noting that the 8 year study on 49,000 women found a major decrease in colon polyps from replacing fats with whole grains and fruits and veggies. That's obviously not the point. * Low fat, Low Cal, I don't care. What I want to know is why you think these are OK, while LC is deemed a failure because it didn't result in a reduction in obesity in America during it's brief peak in popularity a few years back. * Because my experience is that low carb fails and low calorie does not. We're not talking about your personal experience. *We're talking about the slam you made against LC saying that since it didn't result in any reduction in Americans waistlines means it doesn't work. * Except that I am talking and continue to talk from experience of myself, including seeing relatives and coworkers buying Atkins books and not getting any thinner. * And Atkins sold 30 million books without reversing the expansion of the average American waistline. There you go again. Bitching about Atkins, while failing to mention Low Fat, Low Cal. If you stack up books and diet plans on those two, they would go to the moon and back. Yet they get endorsed, while the fact that Atkins books couldn't reverse obesity is taken as proof that LC doesn't work. Here's an additional thought. Just maybe the obesity problem would be even worse had it not been for Atkins. I would be one of those statistics in the obese ranks were it not for Atkins. * I am angered more by diets advocated by those with books to sell and requiring spending more $$$ on food. Again, how many books have been written and profited from LF and Low cal? Yet, they get a free pass. And you actually endorse them! Now the comment about people spending more money on food is interesting. I don't see why anyone would give a rat's ass about how someone else chooses to spend their money. Unless you have an anti- meat agenda. Do I smell PETA here? I suppose you're also very upset about those that choose to buy organic products that cost 3X too right? * I am angered more by such diets when experience of so much as family members who bought the books is that they don't work. Gee, doesn't take much to anger you does it? I'm not angry at all the Low cal, LF books. I don't dislike Pritkin either. The reason your family members failed is likely because they did what you did. Didn't bother to read a book and claimed they were doing LC, while still eating 150g a day of carbs and God knows what else. *Especially when low fat and low calorie have been so actively promoted precisely during the decades when Americans got far more obese, * Due to increase of calories and increasingly sedentary lifestyle. Gee, you think just maybe that's because eating lots of carbs, while avoiding fat, makes most people MORE HUNGRY? while LC only had a brief period of being anywhere near as popular. * If Atkins sold 30 million books and low-carb failed to turn things around, in addition to negative experience of myself and for that matter coworkers and relatives buying Atkins books, I suspect the reason that LC has faded in popularity from a peak is because it largely failed to improve upon low-calorie. And now you've actually done it. You now claim you did Atkins, when in fact you stated that all you did was reduce carbs down to 125-150g a day. One more time, THAT IS NOT ATKINS. *In fact, right now, low fat and low cal are still being promoted by all the mainstream health authorities, govt, media, etc. * LC is not. * Low fat - if you consider 25-30% of calories from fat to be low fat. *If 25-30% of calories are from carbs (120-150 grams per day on 2,000 calories per day), would you call that low carb, and if not then why not? * Low calorie - The only people I know successfully dieting did so from that approach. Yes, in that special little world of yours. Where the supermarket shelves are not full of products designed and marketed as low fat or low cal, but instead loaded with LC ones. Where the media reporting bashes and inaccurately reports not LC, but LF and Low cal.. Where the govt and health authorities have not actively promoted low fat for 3 decades. Where Atkins died of a heart attack. And where you tried Atkins and it did not work, despite the fact that what you did was not even close to Atkins. *These other approaches have been the gold standards for weight loss for decades. * *Endorsed by the media, health authorities, the govt, the FDA food pyramid, teaching in school, shelves full of products designed to be low cal or low fat, etc. * So, how is it after 3 decades of obesity gettin much worse, they get a pass but LC is deemed a failure? * I saw people gaining/keeping weight on low carb more than on low calorie. Per the above comments, it doesn't explain how you claim LC is a failure because it didn't result in less obesity in the overall population. * My personal experience is coworkers, friends and family members and myself having 100% failure rate of low-carb and success of the few that go for low calorie. Which has zippo to do with calling LC a failure based on the fact that it did not reverse obesity, while endorsing low fat, which hasn't reversed it either. In fact, it has reigned supreme precisely over the decades when obesity skyrocketed the worst. And again you claim here you did LC, when you did not. *By that standard, low fat is a failure 10X the size because it's been the gold standard for 3 decades, while LC has not. * Likely some low-fatters thought that turkey pepperoni was a more appropriate snack than no pepperoni at all, and that it was OK to eat both of the cupcakes of a 2-pack if they were low-fat. * Meanwhile, Americans on average expanded their waistlines by increasing their caloric intake and becoming more sedentary in lifestyle. Gee, you think just maybe that's because eating lots of carbs, while avoiding fat, makes most people MORE HUNGRY? * All I ever see along these in lines is occaisonally saying low on vegetables. BIG SNIP Like your experience with how popular LC ever was, how long the craze status lasted, how many LC vs LF specific products are on supermarket shelves, etc, your experience on how the media treats LC is vastly different from mine. * For one thing, approaching and during the peak of the "Low Carb Craze" I heard enough radio ads for weight loss pills with names along the lines of (with exact spelling not guaranteed since I heard those mainly on radio ads and I listen to radio a lot more than I watch TV) Thermo-Carb, Carbolyte, Carb-Blocker, Carb-Assassin, etc. *Those pills were generally stimulants / appetite-suppressants, often with active drug ingredient being ephedrine or something similar in effect - usually ephedrine if the supplement was entirely herbal. *That perked my ears to "Big Lie". Hmm, who was selling those products? Atkins, Agatston, Bernstein? No. They didn't sell them or advocate using them. Which you would know if you bothered to read a book. So, exactly what does some companies promoting their own pills have to do with anything? Again, it's curious how you pick and choose your data. There are even MORE diet pills available and I'm sure an order of magnitude MORE have been sold over time to support diet attempts that were low fat or low calorie. Yet, diet pills are used as a slam against LC only? *Then they have some sound bites from a dietitian stating that LC is unhealthy and unsafe. * I still seem to think something so unbalanced as reduction of carbs to less than 100 grams per day is not optimum for health. *I also hear Atkins fans and fans of low carb in general saying I can eat all the meat I want, all the faty meat I want... OK, so at least you're not saying the media doesn't trot out some numb nuts dietitian to slam LC. *And the statement about eating all the meat you want, all the fatty meat, is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. * That's a good example of what the media does and how people buy into it. * The actual Atkins plan is to eat only enough until you no longer feel hungry. * That is very different than eating all the meat you want. * My experience is that meat is appetizing, along with anything spicy and/or flavorful. *Spicy/flavorful foods, whether "Red Hot" "Cheetos" or foods less "Junk Food" than that, I find to be "diet busters" as much as beer. * And, I never had non-carb calories sate me better than carb calories. That hasn't been the experience for most people. And if you go take a look around, there have been studies that confirmed this. If I am hungry at 3 PM and buy 3/4 pound of chicken salad that is close to 75% chicken 25% mayo and eat half of it, I remain hungry. *I eat the other half and I am still hungry. *Half an hour later I am still hungry. * I can satisfy the hunger at that point with a few ounces of veggies and a couple ounces of bread. *I can do the same with half as much chicken salad and a few more ounces of veggies and 1 ounce more bread. Try doing that on a real LC plan, where you start off at 20g a day of carb. I can assure you that your experience will likely be totally different. If you started your day with cereal or pancakes, then the chicken salad experience would not surprise me. But only one of us here has actually done LC, so how would you know? *And then they show a fridge full of pork chops and butter or a plate with all meat. *I've never seen any of that with low fat. * In fact, the mainstream media is still very positive about LF and LC while very negative about LC. * I saw less positivity of Low fat than of low carb since 2000, including a report in the mainstream media last year on some study claiming low carb achieved more weight loss than low fat, Mediterrainean, and some other diet. *And since 1997 or so enough sound bites here and there saying carbs are what cause weight gain. Sure, I'd agree there is less positive on LF. *They've turned the volume down from 100db to 90db. * And they've turned the positive volume up on LC from 0 to 10db. * That's what I see. * You surely look at other than what I see! *And I don't have my TV-viewing so low as to not notice TV promoting low-carb more than low-fat. Again, you're in your own little world. If there is so much promoting of LC, and it's so successful, then there should be a market for lots of LC formulated products. Yet, we only had a brief period of a few years when lots of those products briefly appeared. Probably 90% of them are gone now. The remaining ones have been relabeled as reduced sugar, precisely because marketing doesn't want to be associated with LC at all. If LC was being promoted, they would be having a free ride on the LC bandwagon of media support. But the supermarket is chock full of low fat and low cal specific products. Why? Because they are still being promoted by the media, govt, and health authorities and there is a big market for them and a very small market for LC. Except of course, where you shop. * And what you see as a big plus for LC, is actually just a news story on a research report that ran for a day or two. *On the other hand, if you look at the media, especially TV, they have a lot of time spent on what is not news. * Such as sound bites added in here and there and somewhat often, equating carbs as being fattening more than fat being fattening. *And from 1998 to 2007, my experience is that those equated carbs with being fattening almost as much as calories being fattening. *An example would be hauling in the dietitian or a Dr. for a segment on how to best lose weight, how to eat healthy. * And in all those, I rarely if evert see LC receive an endorsement. * Just last year I saw one explaining how low-carb was supposed to be most-successful, on a major broadcast TV channel. Yes, one time, last year. Probably the day after a study came out showing that LC had better results. And supposed to be better is key here. Because the next thing usually following the positive, there is a big warning about the serious health risks of eating fat. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article: Low-fat? Low-carbs? Answering best diet question
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ... [snip] I still see so many people I know being pudgy and getting a little pudgier. The few people I know getting or staying lean are none of the people I know who got Atkins books. - Don Klipstein ) Fact of the matter is that NO "diet" works as people view it as temporary and go right back to eating badly. The only thing that works is adopting a healthy eating style eaten in the proper quantities and to continue that forever. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article: Low-fat? Low-carbs? Answering best diet question
one of the problems that people have with low carb is that they are severely
addicted to carbs. they act like a drug in your system. it is hard to stay on a low carb diet at first. even though you may not be hungry, the carb addiction kicks in [i call it the sugar worm ] and bacon just will not do leptin and ghrelin hormones are somehow involved here. i think low fat is also responsible for the diabetes epidemic. hey, as long as it's low fat, it must be okay, right? no problem with downing all that soda, it's low fat (let's not even get into all the artificial sweetners which while no calorie, keep that craving for the sweet taste in your mouth). no problem with having all that sugar coated cereal for bkfst as long as you use skim milk, right? fat and protein do not induce blood sugar problems. they help regulate it. for those of you who believe in evolution, just think what your forebearers ate: lots of veggies & fruit they gathered, and all the meat they could hunt down. they did not farm grains, which are the main carbs of our diet. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article: Low-fat? Low-carbs? Answering best diet question
"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" wrote in message ... one of the problems that people have with low carb is that they are severely addicted to carbs. they act like a drug in your system. it is hard to stay on a low carb diet at first. even though you may not be hungry, the carb addiction kicks in [i call it the sugar worm ] and bacon just will not do leptin and ghrelin hormones are somehow involved here. i think low fat is also responsible for the diabetes epidemic. hey, as long as it's low fat, it must be okay, right? no problem with downing all that soda, it's low fat (let's not even get into all the artificial sweetners which while no calorie, keep that craving for the sweet taste in your mouth). no problem with having all that sugar coated cereal for bkfst as long as you use skim milk, right? fat and protein do not induce blood sugar problems. they help regulate it. for those of you who believe in evolution, just think what your forebearers ate: lots of veggies & fruit they gathered, and all the meat they could hunt down. they did not farm grains, which are the main carbs of our diet. Actually as hunter/gatherers, they DID use a lot of grain. It grew wild and they collected and stored it. The difference was that it was a complex carb not a refined carb. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article: Low-fat? Low-carbs? Answering best diet question
"Dee Flint" wrote:
"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" wrote in message for those of you who believe in evolution, just think what your forebearers ate: lots of veggies & fruit they gathered, and all the meat they could hunt down. * they did not farm grains, which are the main carbs of our diet. Actually as hunter/gatherers, they DID use a lot of grain. *It grew wild and they collected and stored it. *The difference was that it was a complex carb not a refined carb. Watch some educational videos of hunter gatherer societies. They eat well under 5% of their calories from grains. That's not what I mean by "a lot of grain" but it is admittedly some. There are also some hunter gatherer societies that don't eat any grain at all. Grain as a staple of the diet not at spice levels is new on an evolutionary time scale. New enough that I'm wheat intolerant. The advent of civilization came with a combination of herding with selective breeding for docility to domesticate animals, planting grain to feed the herds, deciding to feed the peasants the grain same as the herds, making hay so herds could be kept over the winter. Today much of the world still does need to depend on feeding humans livestock fodder. Some day the whole world will get to chose to eat livestock fodder or not. Even being wheat intolerant and having the options of eating stuff other than grain I still sometimes chose to eat Rye Crisp or other grain products. Fattening and addictive. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
CNN article: Low-fat? Low-carbs? Answering best diet question
On 2009-03-17, AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
for those of you who believe in evolution, just think what your forebearers ate: lots of veggies & fruit they gathered, and all the meat they could hunt down. In other words, /lean/ protein, carbohydrates, and exercise. they did not farm grains, which are the main carbs of our diet. Not only that, but farming is also a main source of animal and vegetable fat. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Article: Healthy carbs benefit from protein, olive oil | Carol Frilegh | General Discussion | 15 | November 18th, 2005 04:54 PM |
Answering trolls | Xray586 | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 4 | December 10th, 2004 04:24 AM |
Article about carbs and biking | Bob in CT | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 18 | April 3rd, 2004 06:43 PM |