Low carb diets

pete wrote:

Lyle McDonald wrote in message news:

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.

Fair enough.
And I agree, carb requirements are not going to be terribly high in that population.

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.

And I have found others who do not.
I agree that they are in the minority but there are few absolutes in this.

Of course, you're comparing one extreme to another: the ****ty American
diet to a lowcarb diet. Of course the lowcarb diet is better but only
by comparison. A diet based around moderate carbs (somewhere between
say 100 g/day and 30-40% of total calories) with most coming from
unrefined, high fiber sources might work as well if not better.

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.

Yup.

Yes, but there
is another approach that I believe is applicable, overeat protein and
keep fat somewhat lower.

Which makes for a tremendously ****ing boring diet, which most are
unlikely to stick to.

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 believe I amde this point once or twice in this thread.

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.

A spurious argument, IMO. Easy enough to tell people to get their EFA's
on any diet.


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.

Yeah, but most would rather have the steak, broccoli with butter, potato
with more butter and fried chicken.


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.

And again you're comparing extremes.
A Zone-ish type diet, allowing moderate fat, some refined carbs (which,
face it, people like), with an emphasis on unrefined carbs probably
gives the best of all worlds. i would argue that it is close to 'ideal'
for the majority. Of course, it's also a bigger pain in the ass to
follow than either low-fat or low-carb.

Life, she is full of little compromises.


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's also been argue that the Earth is flat but that doesn't make it true.

It seems that all evidence so
far shows that blood sugar maintenance is superior on a low carb diet.

Again, compared to the opposite extreme.
There is a middle ground.

And insulin levels are lowered as well. Overall blood profiles improve
dramatically, for most.

A huge confound (demonstrated in other studies) being the weight loss,
which is really the key player. On lowcarb diets where weight is NOT
lost, blood lipid profiles typically worsen.

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.

Again, a matter of extremes and type also plays a role.
Studies clearly show that very low fat diets (usually 15% or lower) with
high carbs (esp. if they are high GI) worsens triglycerides. The
effect, as I recall, is worse in insulin resistant folks.

The question is how low carbs have to go to eliminate this effect. A
goodly few studies are finding that fat intakes of 25-35% of total
calories (which limits total carb intake) and/or carb intakes that are
less refined avoids that problem.

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.

There ar esome naturally occuring starches, when they entered our food
supply I have zero idea. However, we did evolve on relatively low carbs
and higher fat intakes, certainly not the modern diet.

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.

and I also commented in this thread that, for some people, more drastic
restrictions may be necessary.

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.

And this is a situation that does occur and is relevant to diet choice.

Basically, as always, it's complicated.

Lyle

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:52:19 -0600, Proton Soup
wrote:

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.

We did discuss the limiting factors of accessible and current
information. Of course, models should be flexible to allow for change.
That's the key.


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

Elzinator wrote:

"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.

When you say he's a computational systems geek, is he into
dynamic modeling? See, this is an area where you're more
likely to have luck if you're into system dynamics and control
(like a coworker of mine). The problem there is that a
controls person would either

a) think it was straightforward and not really appreciate what
he/she was up against (and thereby be ill-prepared for the
task and quickly conclude it was hopeless), or
b) know instantly what a monumental task it is. This is the
person you're looking for: someone who resists the task with
every fiber of his/her being. 8-)

This is not to say that it isn't worth doing, or attempting at
least parts of it, or that a great deal wouldn't be learned in
the process. By comparing actual known behaviors to
simulations, you can discover that certain mechanisms are
missing or improperly represented. Solving succeeding layers
of this onion would improve knowledge.

--
-Wayne

Ok, since the book project this was originally written for is unlikely
to ever get done, I figured I'd post it. It's a long (11 pages)
chapter/piece examining the pros/cons of the major dietary camps (high
carb/low-fat, moderate carb/moderate fat, low carb) and which diet (IMO,
of course) might be most appropriate for a given individual. It's done
in my usual anal-compulsive style and covers pretty much all of the
bases (with the possible exception of the counting calorie vs. not
counting calories situation although I may add that). The chart at the
end will probably look ****ed up (and there are a lot of typos including
my apparent inability to type carbohydrate correctly). Enjoy (or don't).

Lyle

****
Comparing the diets

In this chapter, I want to look at each of the three major dietary
camps and examine some of the variables which go into determining which
diet might or might not be appropriate for a given individual or set of
circumstances. By the end of this chapter, you should have a reasonable
idea of which diet approach may be appropriate for you.

High-carbohydrate/low-fat
While trends are beginning to show shifts, the high-carb/low-fat diet
is arguably the de facto standard recommendation for both health, weight
loss and athletic performance. At the same time, it’s becoming more
common to criticize this diet on various grounds, blaming it for
increasing obesity and health problems among the general public.
Research is finding that, among certain populations, such a diet can do
more harm than good. Among more fringe diet groups, a diet based around
high-carbs and low-fat has become an almost unspeakable evil. Claims
that you can’t lose fat on high carbs or can’t get ripped, or whatever,
are becoming more and more common.
Now, if you still think of me as the keto-guy you’re probably expecting
me to **** all over this diet interpretation or take the fringe stance
on it. With some qualifications, I’ll say up front that you’re wrong.
The reality is that there are plenty of folks out there who make such a
diet work. In fact, over the years it’s probably safe to say that most
contest bodybuilders have gotten into shape on such a diet. Folks in
the National Weight Control Registry (NWCR, which tracks successful
dieters and their habits) reports most using some version of a
high-carbohydrate diet. It’d be absurd to dismiss it out of hand even
if that’s what most people do.
At the same time, it’s probably safe to say that the grand majority of
folks don’t do particularly well on such a diet, although it depends on
a lot of interacting variables. The question is what differentiates the
groups: why does such a diet work for some but not others? It’s easy
and convenient to say that the drug use among top bodybuilders makes
such a diet workeable but this is too pat of an answer. Nor does it
explain the NWCR folks. In my opinion, the answer is more complex.
Now, upfront I will say that I think a 30/60/10 diet is a little
unbalanced to begin with. My main problem is that the dietary fat is
too low. The technical definition of a low-fat diet is anything less
than 30% and the actual government recommended high-carb/low-fat diet is
actually closer to 15% protein, 45-50% carbs and 30% fat or thereabouts.
As you might imagine, I find this lacking in protein for body
recomposition or optimal athletic performance even if it’s probably ok
for the average person. Frankly, my ideal high-carb/low-fat diet would
be in the realm of 25-30% protein, 50% carbs and 20-25% fat but I’ll
get to that in the proper chapter.
The first problem that typically crops up is that people take a diet
that should be ‘ok’ (either 30/60/10 or 15/45-50/30) and screw it up
completely. The problem is primarily one of interpretation. It’s not
uncommon to see dieters, especially women, turn a 30/60/10 diet into a
10/80/10 diet and they do it by overemphasizing high GI refined crap
(the government and researchers thinks that folks are getting their
carbs from unrefined grains but this is generally incorect). Endurance
athletes, who tend to overemphasize carbohydrates frequently do the same
thing: many, in my experience, are protein deficient (and studies are
suggesting that very low fat intakes can hamper endurance performance).
That takes a diet that was on the edge of being imbalanced to begin with
and screws it up even further.
I can track a majority of high-carb diet failures directly to such a
mistake in interpretation. And, if you take someone from 10/80/10 to
anything else and the results will look like magic. It’s not so much
that the new approach is magical as the original approach was screwed
up. Compared to something so unbalanced, anything will be better.
Ignoring this major problem, let’s assume someone actually sets up a
30/60/10 diet more or less ‘correctly’ in terms of amounts. There can
still be problems. The first is one of taste. A 10% fat diet is
literally a non-fat diet and the small amounts of naturally occuring
fats in non-fat foods tend to readily fill up the small fat allotment.
Many people find such diets to be tasteless and bland which compromises
adherence. Bodybuilders will just suck it up, of course; they are used
to dieting with food that tastes like **** and a common statement is
that ‘When I diet, I just make sure I don’t eat anything that tastes
good.’ Typical macho crap. But the rest of humanity is unlikely to
stick to a diet that they don’t find very tasty.
With such an extremely low fat intake, it can also cause problems with
essential fatty acid intake which can be difficult to meet with so
little of a fat intake. Even Dan Duchaine’s high-carb/low-fat diet
required 8% essential fats for a total of nearly 18% total fat content
(this changed a 30/60/10 diet to 30/52/18 which is damn close to my
ideal anyhow). As I mentioned in the chapter on fat requirements, a
certain minimum is necessary for optimal fat soluble vitamin absorption
and 10% is approaching the point where problems can occur.
Another problem that crops up has to do with the types of carbohdyrates
being eaten. Researchers and other well-meaning types seem to assume
that unrefined carbs are going to be the source of carbohydrates among
the general public but this is generally not the case. Most of the
athletes and bodybuilders who follow such a diet emphasize low GI,
unrefined, high-fiber foods; in my experience, most of your typical
dieters do not. It’s one thing to eat 60% of your total calories from
carbohdyrates when all the foods you’re eating have a GI that is
extremely low.
As soon as you start making breads, pastas and other high GI foods a
larger source of your total carbohdyrates you run into a few problems.
First is that the speed of digestion is very fast, a problem made worse
by the low fat intake and generally low fiber intake of high GI food
sources (and most people don’t eat enough vegetables or fruit which
would provide some much needed fiber). Along with that, the glycemic
load (remember: GI * total carbs) goes up fast meaning blood glucose can
be all over the map. For folks with even moderate insulin resistance
(see below) this causes all kinds of problems.
Along with that, most of the higher GI carbs can be surprisingly high
in calories. So while 2 oz of uncooked pasta may only contain 40 some
odd grams of carbohdyrates and 200 calories, an average large bowl of
pasta may easily contain two or three times that. This can easily
amount to hundreds of calories. Bodybuilders and athletes are typically
obsessive compulsive to begin with, and measure all their food intake;
your average dieter is not. So where an athlete will know exactly how
many calories they are getting from the pasta or rice, the average
person will end up eating too many calories.
That’s ignoring all of the highly refined, high-carbohydrate low-fat
foods that food companies brought to market (Snackwell’s anyone?). As
above, researchers seem to think that most people are increasing their
carbohydrate intake from moderately refined sources but that’s simply
not the case in my experience. As soon as people heard that fat was bad
and carbs were good, and food companies rushed high GI non-fat carb
foods to market, folks went crazy. Studies even found that,
subconsciously, folks figured they could eat more when it was low-fat.
Any benefit from lowering the fat content was more than compensated for.

Basically, very high carbohydrate intakes tend to work best when the
source of those carbs are low on the GI. If you’re willing to eat
almost nothing but low GI carbohydrates in the first place (let’s set an
arbitrary value of 50 or below), a high-carb diet will probably work.
If not...
Related to this issue is meal frequency. Bodybuilders and athletes
eating high-carb diets spread out the carbohydrates over 6 or more meals
meaning their total carbohydrate intake per meal isn’t actually that
large. That, along with the low GI and high fiber intake minimizes
problems with blood glucose swings and the resulting problems. Your
average dieter, eating 3 large meals per day, with high GI
carbohdydrates and too little fiber will generally run into problems
with such a high-carbohdyrate intake.
Another related issue has to do with activity. Athletes who are
burning a tremendous number of carbohdyrate calories per day can
tolerate/handle many more carbohydrates without problems than someone
who is engaging in little to no activity (your average person). Refer
to the chapters on carbohydrates if you’ve forgotten. A bodybuilder or
endurance athlete doing 2 hour workouts on a nearly daily basis may be
able to tolerate (and may in fact need) such high carbohydrate intakes;
someone walking briskly 30 minutes per day three times per week does not.
Related to the activity issue is that of insulin sensitivity. Insulin
sensitivity refers to how well (or how poorly) tissues respond to
insulin. With high insulin sensitivity, small amounts of insulin
generate a large response. With poor insulin sensitivity (insulin
resistance), the body has to produce more insulin to get tissues to
respond.
Individuals who are highly insulin sensitivity handle high carbohdyrate
intakes to a better degree than folks with poor insulin sensitivity. I
should mention, in this regards, that even folks with substandard
insulin sensitivity can sometimes handle high-carbohydrate intakes when
insulin sensitivity has been temporarily elevated (such as with glycogen
depletion). This is relevant because certain dietary approaches (such
as cyclical ketogenic diets) use this ‘trick’: they elevate insulin
sensitivity temporarily and then load in lots of carbohydrates before
insulin sensitivity goes back to substandard levels.
So what determines insulin sensitivity? Well, there are a lot of
factors. First, there’s a genetic component, activity affects it
drastically (improving it), so does diet. Diets high in refined, high
GI carbs tend to impair insulin sensitivity, so do diets high in
saturated fats. Fish oils and unsaturated fats generally improve
insulin sensitivity. A crucial determinant of insulin sensitivity is
bodyfat percentage.
Obese individuals frequently become insulin resistant, which causes
problems with carbohdyrate intakes are excessive (moreso when they are
high on the glycemic index). One of the main problems has to do with
hunger and appetite. Under conditions of relative insulin resistance, a
high carbohydrate intake (especially with very low fat intakes) tends to
spike blood glucose levels, which spikes insulin, which crashes blood
glucose. This tends to cause rebound hunger, making calorie control
nearly impossible. It also makes people feel crappy with alternating
periods of high and low energy. I’ve mentioned previously that studies
are finding that high-carbohydrate/low-fat diets, especially when the
carbs are high on the GI, cause detrimental effects on heart disease
risk in insulin resistant individuals.
Additonally, some people seem to be carbohydrate ‘addicts’. While it’s
debatable whether or not this is a true addiciton, many people find that
eating carbohdyrates makes them want to eat more carbohydrates. Whether
this effect is hormonal or just a taste effect is debatable but it is
real. For such individuals, a high-carb/low-fat diet can cause problems
in terms of calorie control. It’s all good and well to tell such people
to suck it up, or that dieting is supposed to be a test of willpower,
but any diet that makes people feel lethargic and hungry all the time
(from crashing blood glucose or simply the ‘taste’ of carbs) is not
likely to be followed for very long.
As a final issue, empirically, high-carbohdyrate diets can cause
problems with stubborn fat mobilzation. The mechanisms are discussed in
a later chapter but folks with a lot of lower bodyfat can have problems
getting extremely lean on high-carb diets unless they reduce the GI to
very low levels. That means pretty much veggies and the few low GI
starches. Women seem to crave carbohdyrates more than men and sticking
to such a diet can be a losing proposition.


Moderate carb/moderate fat

The next major dietary camp refers to any diet consisting of relatively
moderate carbohydrate and dietary fat intakes. This includes diets such
as Barry Sear’s “The Zone”, Dan Duchaine’s “Isocaloric diet”, 30/40/30
nutrition and others. Such diets generally recommend a macronutrient
split based on fairly equal amounts of protein, carbs and fat. Various
scientific rationales, usually involving hormonal control are typically
given.
The Zone, for example, recommends a 30/40/30 split while Dan’s
Isocaloric diet is 33/33/33. Some bodyuilding gurus recommend 40%
protein with 30% carbs and fats, for what it’s worth. And, as I’ve
mentioned before, cutting edge diabetic diets are in the realm of 15%
protein (too low for athletes but protein can stimulate insulin release
in diabetics), 40-45% carbs and up to 40% fat from monounsaturated
sources. All of those approaches to fall within the description of
moderate carbohdyrate and moderate fat I gave last chapter.
Although I find a lot of the scientific rationales given for such diets
to be pseudoscience at best, I do think that this type of moderate
approach is probably close to ideal for most individuals. As I
mentioned above, my ideal high-carb/low-fat diet is already close to
25-30% protein, 45-55% carbohydrate and 20-30% fat or so and moving
from that to an Isocaloric or Zone diet is a rather minimal change to
begin with.
But rather than focus on issues of eicosanoid blaance or what have you,
I simply think of such diets in terms of the fact that they tend to
control blood glucose and hunger better because of the lowered carbs and
higher fat content. It’s a fairly simple trick, the increased dietary
fat (and usually fiber) slows gastric emptying; the decreased carb
intake decreaes the overall glycemic load.
They also allow more food freedom and taste better than their near zero
fat counterparts; this adds up to increased adherence. Frankly, if the
various diet book authors had simply said “Hey, here’s a diet that
better controls blood glucose and insulin and blunts hunger by slowing
gastric emptying” instead of making up physiology, I don’t think there’d
be as much criticism of such diets.
So what people might find such an approach to be ideal? As I described
above, for that small percentage of individuals who are genetically very
insulin sensitive, or who are burning a tremendous number of calories
(from carbs) with daily or near daily workouts, higher carb intakes are
probably more appropriate. At the very least, they can be tolerated.
Since that describes a rather small percentage of people in the first
place, I find the moderate carb/moderate fat approach more appropriate
under most conditions.
For people burning less calories (or carbs) during the day, there’s
simply no real need for such high carbohydrate intakes. Folks doing
more realistic levels of activity (perhaps an hour of weight training
3-4X/week and moderate cardio), carb requirements simply aren’t that
high. Look back at the chapter on carbohydrates if you’ve forgotten already.
From a caloric control issue, by lowering carbohydrates, and raising
dietary fat, digestion is slowed and blood glucose levels tend to even
out (note: the major effect is from reducing carbohydrates, fat is
simply a caloric ballast). This generally means more stable energy
levels and less pronounced hunger. This also allows foods higher on the
GI to be chosen if desired (Dan allowed foods up to 70 to be consumed
and this seems as reasonable a suggestion as any). Yes, it’s almost
always better to choose lower GI foods from a health standpoint but GI
becomes far less crtical when total carbohydrate intake is decreased.
Remember that the glycmic load is the GI times the grams of digestible
carbs: reduce digestible carb intake and GI becomes less important.
Breads, pasta, rice and the rest can be consumed in controlled amounts
on such a diet with far fewer problems.
Another potential benefit is that, by reducing carbohydrate intake,
muscle glycogen is generally maintained at slightly lower. As I
discussed in the chapters on nutrient metabolism, this enhances fat
burning. At the same time, the moderate carb intakes should be
sufficient to sustain performance in all but the most extensive types of
training. As I discussed in the carbohdyrate chapter, a typical 24 set
weight workout may only burn 50 grams of carbs. A typical moderate
carbohydrate diet should contain somewhere in the realm of 150-200 grams
of carbs, more than sufficient to cover activity requirements and other
minimal requirements (brain and the rest).
Moderate carb/moderate fat diets also tend to limit problems with
insulin resistance related blood sugar crashes as a consequence of both
reduced carbohdyrate intake and increased dietary fat. However, some
extremely insulin resistant individuals still run into problems with
even moderate carbohydrate intakes. For such people, a more drastic
decrease in carbohydrates may be necessary.
As well, those individuals who find that eating carbohydrates makes
them want to eat more carbohydrate can also run into problems even with
moderate carbohydrate intake. Women or men with stubborn fat deposits
should generally find better mobilization by lowering carbohydrates;
further reductions may be necessary in extreme cases.
I should mention, and I’ll come back to this in a later chapter, that
moderate carb/moderate fat diets tend to be more of a planning hassle
than the other diets, especially at first. While I don’t believe that
you have to be exact in the percentages (as long as you get in the
ballpark, you’ll be fine), it can still be a pain in the butt to figure
out meal plans.
From a simplicity standpoint, it’s pretty easy to reduce fat and it’s
pretty easy to reduce carbs; getting moderate amounts of each can be a
hassle. I’ll give some shortcuts in the proper chapter. As well, with
practice and time, it becomes relatively trivial to eyeball meals to get
in the right ratio.


Low-carbohdyrate/high-fat
And finally we come to the low-carbohydrate or ketogenic diet, the diet
with perhaps the greatest amount of controversy and argument surrounding
it. Now, at the risk of beating a dead horse, and since I find many of
my critics to be a little slow on the uptake, I’m going to go off on one
last rant about this topic.

Rant mode on:

If you think of me as the keto-guru, you’re probably expecting me to
advocate the ketogenic/low-carb diet over all the others. People seem to
think that since I wrote a book on the topic, I must be their strongest
promoter. It makes me wonder if these morons actually read the book
since I made it clear there that I didn’t feel that ketogenic diets were
necessarliy ideal. I repeated this multiple times within that book.
I’ve actually found two different criticisms of my attitude towards
ketogenic diets, depending on whether the critic is pro- or
anti-ketogenic diets.
First is the group that feels that, since I didn’t write negatively
about keto diets, I must be their biggest advocate. Since they dislike
ketogenic diets on some level, they feel that I should as well. Anyone
who writes honestly and fairly about them is, by definition, in favor of
them.
The second groups seems to feel that since I didn’t say that ketogenic
diets are magic, I must not believe in them. Since they think the diet
is magic, they think I should too. Both groups, as usual, are guilty of
projecting their own personal biases onto me. Both groups are
apparently unable to count beyond two, since they see the world in a
rather simplistic ‘for/against’ way.
To make things clear to both groups, I’m going to sum up my attitude
towards ketogenic diets one more time. I’ll be using simple words as
much as possible.
My opinion on ketogenic diets is this: ketogenic diets are one of many
(ok, three) dietary approaches available. They have advantages and
disadvantages (like all diets). They are appropriate under some
circumstances, relatively neutral under others, and entirely
inappropriate under still other circumstances. They are not magic but
they work tremendously well for some people and absolutely horribly for
other. There are still questions regarding their long-term effects.
Of course, you could make the same statement about any dietary approach
(reread the previous pages for a discussion of the other diets). They
all have pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages. But since keto
diets are among the most contentious, and since my name is essentially
equated with the ketogenic diet, I’m having to make my stance that much
more clear.
The point I’ve tried to make through this book, and one that I will
continue to make (probably for the rest of my life since morons will
always think of me as the keto-guru), is that, it’s a matter of context,
always. Whether a given diet, or training program, or supplement or
drug is ‘the best’ always depends on context.
And if you continue to think that I only advocate or believe in
ketogenic diets after reading that, I strongly suggest you go get your
head checked for signs of trauma. At the very least get yourself
sterilized, you’re too stupid to be reproducing if you can’t understand
the point I’m trying to make here.

Rant mode off:

Now, I want to point out again, while a ketogenic diet is a
low-carbohydrate diets, not all low-carbohydrate diets are ketogenic
diets. Recall from the chapter on carbohdyrates that an intake of carbs
below 100 g/day is required to induce ketosis to any measurable degree
(most ketogenic authors set an initial daily limit of 30 grams/day but
I’ve never found a rationale for this recommendation). Not all low-carb
diets reduce carbohydrates below the 100 g/day level so not all will
induce ketosis. However, for the sake of typing and reading simplicity,
I’m going to refer to all diets in this section as ketogenic.
For the purposes of this section, as mentioned last chapter I’m going
to set carbs at 20% or less of total intake for a low-carbohydrate diet.
Protein will be set at 30% and the remainder of the diet will be fat
(in this example, 50%). As carbs go lower, fat intake goes higher, of
course, up to the limit of 0% carbs and 70% fat. I should also mention
that some authors prefer to do low-carbohdyrate diets as nearly all
protein affairs, with little to no dietary fat. While I personally see
no real need for this (and fat tastes better), this can also work.
I should probably mention that ketogenic diets actually come in a few
varieties. First are the standard or strict ketogenic diets where
carbohydrates are kept reduced for extended (or unlimited) periods.
Most of the mainstream low-carb/keto diets such as Atkins and Protein
Power fall into this category.
Second are the modified ketogenic diets which come in two flavors. The
first is diets which reduce carbohydrates throughout the day but allow
small amounts of carbs before, during, and/or after training. We named
those targeted ketogenic diets (TKD) in my first book and I’ll stick
with that name. Finally are the cyclical ketogenic diets (CKD) such as
Bodyopus, The Anabolic Diet, and Rob Faigan’s NHE diet which alternates
periods of ketogenic dieting with phases of high-carb intakes. Since
all of these diets revolve around a ketogenic/low-carbohydrate phase,
I’ll discuss them together.
Let’s look at the SKDs first and when and where they might be
appropriate. Frankly, I could probably just tell you that, if you don’t
meet the requirements for either of the previous two diets, some type of
ketogenic diet is going to be appropriate for you; it’s a choice by
exclusion. To be safe, I’ll include a little more commentary than that.
Obviously, folks who aren’t doing much (or any) activity, ketogenic
diets tend to be appropriate. Now, it’s easy to simply say ‘You should
exercise and eat more carbs’ but this isn’t always possible. In cases
of extreme obesity, or injury, or just plain laziness, exercise
(especially intense exercise) may be out of the question. Since
carbohydrate requirements are going to be extremely low (approaching the
minimums discussed in the carbohydrate chapters), a ketogenic diet can
be appropriate under those conditions.
Even individuals doing nothing but low-intensity activity (think
walking and such), carbohdyrate requirements are rarely very high.
Low-carbohydrate diets are also appropriate under those conditions.
There is some evidence that a low-carb diet might be useful for
ultraendurance athletes (who typically perform for hours on end at
fairly low intensities) but I’ll discuss that below. I’ll talk about
higher intensity exercise performance in a second.
I’ve also found that folks with extreme insulin resistance do better in
terms of energy levels and hunger/appetite control when they reduce
carbohydrates. They go from constant energy swings to more stable
energy. Research typically report rather significant improvements in
many health parameters such as blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels
although this depends on total caloric intake and fat source as well.
But for those individuals with severe insulin resistance and the
resultant hyperinsulinemia (high-insulin levels), a near complete
reduction of carbs may be necessary to bring glucose and insulin levels
under control.
Along those lines, some people simply feel better on low-carbohydrate
(especially ketogenic diets). They feel mentally more aware and
function better, especially after a few weeks of adaptation. At the
same time, as I’ve mentioned, some folks never seem to adapt to such
diets, always feeling brain fuzzed, lethargic and all the rest. Many
folks couldn’t care either way. Is this genetics, a micronutrient
imbalance, individual variance? I have no idea, but I’ve seen it enough
times to know it happens.
My general experience, in terms of giving you some guidelines to go on
is this: if you feel fine, meaning that you function well with no major
energy swings on a carb based diet, odds are you’ll feel like **** on a
ketogenic diet. You probably have good insulin sensitivity, high levels
of activity, are fairly lean and are genetically well suited to run on
carbohydrates.
If you’re one of those individuals who always feels lagged out and
unenergetic on high-carbohydrate diets (or get major energy crashes
after a high-carb meal), you’ll probably tend to feel wonderful on a
low-carbohydrate diet. You may be inactive, carrying too much fat, or
simply be genetically insulin resistant, meaning your body isn’t set up
to handle lots of carbohydrates.
This is where individual variance starts to play a role. I suspect
that the differences in response have to do with many of the factors
described in the previous sections: activity, insulin sensitivity and
the rest. At the same time, research is finding that some people seem
to be better adapted to using fat for fuel while others do not (meaning
their bodies prefer carbohydrates). Genetics most certainly plays a
role. Unfortunately, at present there’s no easy way to know who will do
best with higher fat and who won’t. Use the guidelines above: if you
feel good on high-carbs, you’ll probably feel terrible on low-carbs and
vice versa. Some people seem to have the metabolic flexibilty to handle
either approach at which point it’s more an issue of preference and the
other related issues.
While I feel that a moderate carbohydrate/moderate fat diet will
probably be sufficient for all but the most extreme cases, there are
always those individuals for whom a nearly complete reduction in
carbohdyrate intake may be necessary. And, as above, for those folks
for whom even moderate amounts of carbs make them hungry for more
carbohydrates (this tends to be far more true for starches than anything
else), a complete removal of them may be necessary at least for the time
being. I’ve found that, after time on a ketogenic diet, most people
lose their taste for the high GI starches as their taste buds adapt.
Frequently they can go back to a more moderate carb/moderate fat
approach without getting into problems.
This is actually an important point, even for athletic individuals.
Even with the most stalwart dietary discipline, athletes can have
problems reducing calories on a diet becuase of the presence of what we
might call ‘diet-breaker’ foods. That is, even in small amounts,
certain foods make people cheat and overeat. While dietary fat can be
problematic here, starches and sugars are typically what’s craved on a diet.
Now, as anyone who read my rather torturous Bodyopus diaries so long
ago knows, I am (well, used to be) one of those individuals. Even the
smallest taste of starch made me want to eat more. Keeping bread or
what have you in the house meant a diet that was destined to fail. Over
time, I’ve found balance, I can (and usually do) use a moderate
carb/moderate fat diet without running into too many problems.
As well, even athletic individuals can suffer from some degree of
insulin resistance (at a genetic level) and may not handle carbohydrates
well. In Bodyopus, Dan wrote that he felt most bodybuilding failures
were do to poor insulin sensitivity. While that may be a bit of an
overstatement, it definitely affects things.
For those individuals, even who are highly athletic, a complete removal
of the diet breaker foods (or foods that interact negatively with poor
insulin sensitivity) may be a necessary evil. As above, while I think
moderate carb/moderate fat diets will probably do most of the work this
isn’t always the case. Some people will have to remove those foods
entirely from their diet to be able to stick with it. As well as I’ve
mentioned repeatedly above, for some people (women moreso than men),
stubborn fat seems to come off better when carbs are restricted. I
won’t deal with the mechanisms here, just take it at face value.
So now we have a contradiction, even highly active individuals (meaning
high carbohdyrate requirements) may find a situation where carbohydrates
need to be restricted to very low levels. The question then becomes of
how to sustain exercise performance on such restricted carbohydrate
intakes. Most critics of ketogenic diets would simply say ‘Eat more
carbs’ but, as above, this may not be an option (also, as above, these
people are idiots who can’t see past a single dietary approach). So we
have to compromise. Modified ketogenic diets are that compromise: they
let folks use ketogenic diets while trying to maintain performance with
the inclusion of carbs at specific times.
To date, two primary solutions have been developed, both of which I
mentioned above. The first, and perhaps the simplest is the Targeted
Ketogenic Diet (TKD). The TKD allows varying amounts (usually 25-50
grams) of high GI carbohydrates before, during or after training with
carbohydrates being severely restricted the rest of the day. This
accomplishes a few things. First, it allows dieters to eat some of the
diet breaker foods, but under controlled circumstances. This helps deal
with some of the psychological issues involved with dieting. Second, it
goes a long way towards sustaining exercise performance by providing
carbs around training. Third, since insulin resistance isn’t much of a
problem right around training, the high GI stuff that everybody likes to
eat can be eaten fairly ‘safely’ (from a blood glucose/insulin release
point of view). Even extremely insulin resistant/pre-diabetic
individuals can usually eat carbs right after an intense workout without
problems, as exercise elevates insulin sensitivity to high levels
temporarily (there is also insulin indepdendent glucose uptake during
exercise so the body can utilize glucose without having to increase
insulin levels).
The second solution, and the one I suspect most readers are aware of is
the cyclical ketogenic diet (CKD). A CKD refers to any diet which
alternates periods of low-carbohydrate (or ketogenic eating) with
periods of high-carbohydrate eating. Diets such as DiPasquale’s
“Anabolic” and “Metabolic” diets, Dan’s Bodyopus, and Faigan’s NHE are
all examples of CKD’s. At the end of this book, I even offer my own
take on the CKD, a redevelopment of the original Ultimate Diet that
Duchaine and Zumpano introduced over 20 years ago.
CKD’s are another compromise diet approach: they switch between a
ketogenic/low-carbohydrate phase (for anywhere from 5 or more days) and
a high-carb phase (lasting from 12 to 48 hours or more) to restore
muscle glycogen and hopefully generate an anabolic response. They are
for those athletic individuals who, for one reason or another, needs to
restrict carbohydrates severely, but sustain exercise performance.
Active individuals with severe (diagnosed) insulin resistance or even
the beginning of Type II diabetes tend to fare poorly on CKDs; the
extended carb-load period causes all of the problems that they are
trying to avoid in the first place. The TKD is more appropriate for them.
On that note, I should mention a seemingly contradictory situation,
that of endurance athletes. Interest in fat loading and fat adapting
endurance athletes has been a long-term project for exercise
physiologists and some research suggests that some endurance atthletes
can benefit from following a low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet for some
period of time (5-21 days) and improve performance. This is especially
true for ultra-endurance athletes who may perform for many hours at
submaximal intensities, relying predominantly on fat for energy. A
recent series of studies found that fat adapting cyclists for 5 days
followed by a 1 day carb-load (similar to a CKD) improved performance in
some athletes. The fat adaptation increased fat utilization at lower
intensities but the carb-load made sure that sufficient glycogen was
available for high intensity efforts. I’ll discuss this in greater
detail in the chapters on low-carbohydrate diets.
So summing up the section on low-carbohydrate diets. As above, we have
two basic flavors of low-carb diet. The first is simply a diet in which
carbohydrates are restricted for extended periods of time. Such diets
are appropriate (and may be desired) for individuals who aren’t doing
much, if any, exercise (or are only doing low-intensity actiivity), who
may have severe problems with insulin resistance, who have such an
extreme carbohydrate ‘addiction’ that a full removal of starches may be
required to control hunger.
The second flavor, the modified low-carbohydrate diets come in two
separate groups. They are for those individuals who need (for some
reason) to lower carbohydrates to low levels but still need to sustain
exercise performance. First are the targeted type diets which have
dieters restrict carbohydrates except around exercise (this is actually
a very common approach to diet setup in bodybuilding literature).
Second are the cyclical diets that alternate some period of
low-carbohydrate dieting with periods of high-carbohydrate intake to
refill muscle glycogen (and sometimes, it’s argued, to stimulate a
growth response).

Summing up
Ok, now you’ve hopefully got a better idea of which diet approach may
be the most ideal for you. To make it a little more clear, I’m going to
try to summarize all of the above information into a chart so you can
see how the different variables interact.


Diet Activity Insulin Sensitivity Carb choices Carb addict Stubborn fat
HC/LF High High Low GI No No

MC/MF Medium Low-Moderate Medium GI Maybe Maybe

LC/HF
Standard Low Low N/A Yes Yes
Targeted High Low N/A Yes Yes
Cyclical High Low N/A Yes Yes

copyright 2003. Lyle McDonald

Proton Soup wrote:

"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.

No argument, although few engineering systems rely on
nonlinearity to the extent that biological systems do. For
example, I doubt it's very enlightening to linearize a
biological system around some operating point, because normal
operation involves full-scale perturbations.

--
-Wayne

Doug Freese wrote:
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.

Well, he *is* the published author of several books on Low Carb Diets.
Look him up at www.bodyrecomposition.com to see his list of books.

Dally

Lyle McDonald wrote in message .. .
pete wrote:

Lyle McDonald wrote in message news:

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.

Fair enough.
And I agree, carb requirements are not going to be terribly high in that population.

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.

And I have found others who do not.
I agree that they are in the minority but there are few absolutes in this.

Of course, you're comparing one extreme to another: the ****ty American
diet to a lowcarb diet. Of course the lowcarb diet is better but only
by comparison. A diet based around moderate carbs (somewhere between
say 100 g/day and 30-40% of total calories) with most coming from
unrefined, high fiber sources might work as well if not better.

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.

Yup.

Yes, but there
is another approach that I believe is applicable, overeat protein and
keep fat somewhat lower.

Which makes for a tremendously ****ing boring diet, which most are
unlikely to stick to.

It does suck indeed. For the avg. dieter it is not realistic for most
(although some such as Dr. Colker and his Greenwich diet, promote this
type of low carb, low fat, high protein diet), and from the responses
to the book,some people do indeed follow it. Even Elzi said above she
was fond of eating salad and lean meats frequently. Which seems crazy
to me but everyone has their own "taste". But for some, such as
competetive bodybuilders, this seems to be the approach most used from
preparing for a show. It's not applicable for the avg. person, but it
is along the lines of what I'm interested in, and it does work really
well.

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 believe I amde this point once or twice in this thread.


I'm sure you did, I didn't read through the whole thread. But isn't
this point huge, I mean, to me this is enough to make the point FOR a
low carb diet. If the majority of people are going to eat less w/out
counting calories, what more support does this type of diet need. IF
done properly, it goes along w/ what our evolutionary diet was.
(That's a big IF), but even if its not, it's still usually resulting
in less eating, meeting protein needs, weight being lost and health
improving. I don't see where the low fat, higher carb diet compares
except for the athlete who is willing to count every calorie or person
who does not respond well to the lower fat intake (perhaps b/c of what
you've mentioned in the past, a low fat phenotype) Oddly enough, w/
all my support for low carbs, I still can't have much fat so am cursed
to the sickeningly boring low fat variety of eating, but still keep
the carbs low as well.

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.

A spurious argument, IMO. Easy enough to tell people to get their EFA's
on any diet.


OK, then how about this. For most, the protein sources will be easier
met and will be tastier b/c for "most" (exceptions being Elzi and
others that enjoy rabbit food) people, they'd rather have fattier
steak, eggs, and fattier fish than skinless chicken, turkey, egg
whites and tuna. I know what it's like to dread having a skinless
chicken breast every few hours, regardless of how well you season that
****.


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.

Yeah, but most would rather have the steak, broccoli with butter, potato
with more butter and fried chicken.

True. But i'm talking in the context of comparing someone on a "diet",
I won't argue the Std. Am. Diet is crap, i'm talking in the context of
what 2 different dieters would "typically follow", either a low carb
approach w/ moderate to high fat or a low fat approach w/
moderate-higher carbs. Or of course if they have plenty of free time
can try to set up a zone diet ratio.



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.

And again you're comparing extremes.
A Zone-ish type diet, allowing moderate fat, some refined carbs (which,
face it, people like), with an emphasis on unrefined carbs probably
gives the best of all worlds. i would argue that it is close to 'ideal'
for the majority. Of course, it's also a bigger pain in the ass to
follow than either low-fat or low-carb.

Life, she is full of little compromises.


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's also been argue that the Earth is flat but that doesn't make it true.

Well, this is going along w/ what several others believe as well.
Poliquin puts 50-75% of his clients on low carbs, in part b/c he does
believe everyone has some degree of insulin resistance. It is my
understanding Doc Serrano and Dipasquale do the same, for the same
reason. The article I posted a while back by Dr. Ron Rosedale and his
transcript on "Insulin and It's Metabolic Effects", talks about his
success treating diabetes patients and his belief that everyone is
"pre-diabetic". I personally don't think it's hard to believe that
most people have this problem. For example, we have (i believe) a 60+%
obesity rate in our country. Of course they are one the SAD diet w/
high fat and refined carbs, little activity. But the point being is
they are eating high sat. fat, which worsens insulin sensitivity. High
sugar and refined carbs, worsens things. High bodyfat, adaptions from
this cause insulin resistance, right?? So Isn't most of our population
"insulin resistant" to some degree b/c of thier weight and standard
diet. On top of that, at least where I live in NJ, and visit NY often.
I see everyone feeding their kids everyone eating candy, drinking
soda, eating ****, **** and more ****. Even babies. If kids are being
fed a healthy diet, I'd like to know in what part of the country. All
I see from everyone I know is crap foods. Look no further than in the
cafeteria of schools, fries, candy, soda machines, etc etc. And from
what I understand, juvenile diabetes is on the rise. Is this not at
least in part due to a high carb (refined mainly) high calorie
intake??? There is no way kids are supposed to be T2 diabetics, this
is not at all unnatural.

It seems that all evidence so
far shows that blood sugar maintenance is superior on a low carb diet.

Again, compared to the opposite extreme.
There is a middle ground.

And insulin levels are lowered as well. Overall blood profiles improve
dramatically, for most.

A huge confound (demonstrated in other studies) being the weight loss,
which is really the key player. On lowcarb diets where weight is NOT
lost, blood lipid profiles typically worsen.

Lyle, what studies do you have on handy or what researchers should I
lookfor on medline to find references to this. I'd be interested in
learning more, I wasn't aware of worsened blood profiles in low carb
dieters at maintenance calories. Also, what types of fats were eaten.
I don't doubt u, but it's just hard to imagine a low carb diet of lean
meats, monounsaturated fats and EFA's, and low gi veggies at
mantenance calories worsening the blood profile.


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.

Again, a matter of extremes and type also plays a role.
Studies clearly show that very low fat diets (usually 15% or lower) with
high carbs (esp. if they are high GI) worsens triglycerides. The
effect, as I recall, is worse in insulin resistant folks.

The question is how low carbs have to go to eliminate this effect. A
goodly few studies are finding that fat intakes of 25-35% of total
calories (which limits total carb intake) and/or carb intakes that are
less refined avoids that problem.

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.

There ar esome naturally occuring starches, when they entered our food
supply I have zero idea. However, we did evolve on relatively low carbs
and higher fat intakes, certainly not the modern diet.

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.

and I also commented in this thread that, for some people, more drastic
restrictions may be necessary.

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.

And this is a situation that does occur and is relevant to diet choice.

Basically, as always, it's complicated.

Indeed. ANother question, for you and Elzi. She was talking about the
damage from glycation. Dr. Rosedale discussed this in his article
supporting a very low carb diet. Does glycation always occur from the
ingestion of carbs and proteins, and what exactly is the damage done
from this process when it does occur.

Also, overall aren't most carb sources aside from veggiesand some
fruits causing more ROS that can result in damage and accelerate
ageing. Are you aware of studies comparing ROS formation from a low
carb diet vs. a low fat diet?


Lyle

Dally wrote:


Well, he *is* the published author of several books on Low Carb Diets.
Look him up at www.bodyrecomposition.com to see his list of books.

Thanks for web page and I read the articles included but not the
books. Very well written, down to earth, consise and nothing I would
disagree with. Considering some of the stuff I have seen written
through the eyes of lifting, this is good ****. Having said that,
there wasn't much in there that I hadn't read before.

If you would like to read about Lyle times 100 I'd point you to
http://www.pponline.co.uk/ which crosses all sports including lifting.


--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

"Wayne S. Hill" wrote in message
...
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.

Well - theyt are not *all* non-linear!

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.

The property of non-linearity has less to do with properties of robustness
(robustness connotes graceful degradation upon error, no single point of
failure and survival in nonhomogeneous scenarios/contexts/environments) and
effectiveness (effective for what?), than that of being dynamical and
complex.

In fact, it is mathematically more problematic for a non-linear system to
hold coherence (e.g., biodynamics, soliton quantum lattices and soliton
binding energies), than for a linear system to do so in the face of
perturbation.

However, what non-linear dynamical systems *do* exhibit vs linear systems,
is the propensity for forming function/properties that are emergent,
synergistic or both; i.e., unable to be cast into the froth of the
eliminative materialists and reductionists with any expectation of success
due to the inforamtion_lossy process that reduction is.

Now, it is the case that certain non-linear systems have the robustness and
effectiveness properties you mention; but if you go deep into this matter, I
think you will find that such system have subsystems (linear) that enable
the robust functionality (you do not want either a far-from-equilibrium
system or a non-linear system in charge of foundational biophysics for
example, when linear feedback will suffice), or the effectiveness of the
system in an environmental context.

And it is the overall systemic complexity of systems that happen to have
non-linear subsystems, that more determines their funtional effectiveness.
It is the complexity of emergent dissapative structures that will lead to
robustness and effectiveness directly, not the property of having processes
that are describbale using PDEs/DDEs/etc *per e*.

I.e., ther are lots non-linear systems that are either chaotic, far-from
equlibrium, or do not exhibit either robust dynamics or effectiveness in
dealing with perturbation.



See

Nonlinear Science - Emergence and Dynamics of Coherent Structures by Alwyn
Scott (A master in this area - I have spoken with him a lot over the years.)

http://www4.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-850107-2#contents





--
-Wayne

"Elzinator" wrote in message
...


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 ...

Is this what a tossed salad means on the menu at Gay nightclubs?