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 |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:58:26 -0500, jmk
wrote: On 12/30/2003 10:04 PM, Aaron wrote: "gman99" wrote in message ... C'mon, show me where I said it. I was agreeing that a. pasta is a highly processed food, which it is try homemade then...isn't pasta basically flour and water ? b. so are breads Again, flour water and yeast ? tell me, what is the thing that happens between the grain and the flour? is it called, proccessing? It's called grinding actually -- as in stone ground. yeeesss...and what sort of action is grinding? Processing, maybe? |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Aaron" hunt354 at hotmail dot com wrote:
"gman99" wrote in message ... C'mon, show me where I said it. I was agreeing that a. pasta is a highly processed food, which it is try homemade then...isn't pasta basically flour and water ? b. so are breads Again, flour water and yeast ? tell me, what is the thing that happens between the grain and the flour? is it called, proccessing? In that sense you could say your water is processed if you are in any type of municipality...flour is nothing more than crushed grain... |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
Chupacabra wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:58:26 -0500, jmk wrote: On 12/30/2003 10:04 PM, Aaron wrote: "gman99" wrote in message ... C'mon, show me where I said it. I was agreeing that a. pasta is a highly processed food, which it is try homemade then...isn't pasta basically flour and water ? b. so are breads Again, flour water and yeast ? tell me, what is the thing that happens between the grain and the flour? is it called, proccessing? It's called grinding actually -- as in stone ground. yeeesss...and what sort of action is grinding? Processing, maybe? We're still talking two natural ingredients... |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
|
#245
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
We're still talking two natural ingredients... Your point being? Point being...someone said that pasta and bread were highly processed foods, I stated that they should try homemade...therefore removing the 'highly processed' aspect. When someone tells me highly processed (IE frozen dinners) I immediately equate this to many additives to keep things fresh...etc. |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"roger" wrote in message
... On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:16:46 -0600, Lyle McDonald wrote: Lyle does not agree that eating whole wheat bread/pasta is better than eating white bread/ regular pasta?? Where did I say any such thing? And then Lyle says: Obviously, if you're going to eat bread, wholewheat is better. Multiple personality is a fascinating disorder. And this all occurred in the same post!!!! Must be a case of rapid cycling. Well someone did say that Lyle switched to endurance training. Is English your first language? |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
gman99 wrote:
We're still talking two natural ingredients... Your point being? Point being...someone said that pasta and bread were highly processed foods, I stated that they should try homemade...therefore removing the 'highly processed' aspect. But that wouldn't remove the "highly processed" aspect. Commercial flour *is* highly processed; therefore if you make homemade bread or pasta with commercial flour, the finished product is highly processed. If you make your own flour, it might be less than highly processed, but processed nonetheless. And I would imagine doing the processing yourself would be a major PITA. I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything... When someone tells me highly processed (IE frozen dinners) I immediately equate this to many additives to keep things fresh...etc. While adding preservatives, coloring, and various crap *may* be part of processing for some foods, that's not the definition of "process" (you could ask Knapik for that definition, or just look here http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=process ). |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
Lyle McDonald wrote in message ...
pete wrote: Lyle McDonald wrote in message .. . 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. As am I. Doesn't change my statement. Or the fact that the *majority* aren't going to follow such a diet in the long-term. Keep in the forefront of your mind that yo'ure getting a very skewed version of reality hanging out in places like mfw or what have you. Almost by definition, you tend to get the successes (and the pathological anal compulsive head cases who would follow such a diet) and that can give a very skewed vision of reality. The simple fact is that most people stick with most behavioral changes beyodn a few weeks. The odds of them sticking to it when it's monotonous as all hell (b/c the food choices are so limited) is far less likely. Yeah, fine, bodybuilders and athletes will do it without problem. I don't have a problem with it but I don't thrive on variety (except in my porn), neither do you, neither does Elzi. I suspect, most people will want and need more variety than a lowcarb/lowfat/high protein/high veggie diet can provide and that means low adherence. 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. It makes a point for something OTHER than the standard modern diet. You can readily reduce the monstrous modern caloric intakes without removing all carbs from the diet. Small qualitiative changes are frequently sufficient without jumping from one extreme to the other. Are you seeing my point? Compared to the SAD, antyhing is better. Seriously, it would be hard to come up with a worse diet if you tried. Ok, maybe lard and table sugar but, hell, that's not far from what people are eating already. Improving upon that is not difficult by any stretch but I don't think it requires going to the lowcarb extreme either. Moderation and all that rot. 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. The universe can count to more than 2. I'm sure you can as well. 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. Poliquin also said in one of the Q&A's I read last night that he rates his clients based on the 5 chinese types (he said he felt the Q asker was a 'fire' type). And that changing shoes alters fiber recruitment and that a 13:11 DHA/EPA ratio will break strength plateaus. Which makes me think that he's making up a lot of **** as he goes along. there is a tendency in this industry for people to say stupid **** to appear different or cutting edge. It is my understanding Doc Serrano and Dipasquale do the same, for the same reason. Well, Dipasquale made up his mind that his anabolic diet was optimal about 10 years ago and has been fitting all modern research into that belief. I'm friends with Serrano and, let's just say, I don't agree with everything he has to say. This is one of those places. 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 yeah, sure, diabetes. I'm down with low carb diets for diabetes. and his belief that everyone is "pre-diabetic". This is the same type of nonsense that folks use to sell all manners of snake oil. It's a bunch of bull****. It's like defining everyone as 'nutrient deficient' to sell vitamins and minerals. 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. I ahven't looked at hte numbers recently. Last one I saw, in terms of clinical insulin resistances was in the 25% range. It may be higher now. 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. Hoffer LJ et. al. Metabolic effects of very low calorie weight reduction diets. J Clin Invest Krehl WA et. al. Some metabolic changes induced by low carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr (1967) 20: 139-148. Golay A et al. Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet? Int J Obes Relat MetabDisord. (1996) 20: 1067-1072. Phinney SD et. al. The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis without caloric restriction: physical and biochemical adaptations. Metabolism (1983) 32: 757-768. Would be good starting points. Also, what types of fats were eaten. As with the current crop of studies, subjects were basically given the Atkins diet guidelines and told to follow them. meaning lots of sat fats and dietary cholesterol. 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. yeah, but now you're making requirements on low carb diets that I assure you the AVERAGE low carb dieter is absolutely NOT following. Someone following Atkins or what have you is not eating anything near the nutrient profile you listed above. So you can't have it both ways, specifying healthy nutrients for a lowcarb diet but not allowing them to be specificied for a non-low carb diet. 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. Not my area of expertise, ask someone who cares. 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? Not my area of expertise, ask someone who cares. Look, I don't want you to misunderstand me, there's zero doubt in my mind that the OVErconsumption of OVERLy refined foods is doing more harm than good. I simply don't feel it's automatically necessary to jump to the otehr extreme to achieve what needs to achieved. Is it necessary in some cases? Absolutely? All of them? I don't think so. Lyle As always, Lyle, u make really good points. You are right in saying my view is skewed as I am myself extreme in my discipline and approach to eating, as are many people I talk to online. It really is true but frustrating that the avg. person will not even make slight changes in their eating habbits despite being grossly overweight, extremely unhealthy, etc. I've deal w/ people often asking my questions in regards to eating and exercise, uncluding family (my mother and sister in particular), a few friends, clients, etc. And almost no-one (outside of 3 clients, 1 lawyer, 1 doctor (both lost over 40lbs), and a scientist at Princeton were willing to make changes to their diet) Not even my mother who is unhealthy, and I present info to her in regards to her condition, will change her eating. Even when I manipulated her plan to include her favorite food (bread) every day at every meal, would she follow a structured diet. Oh well. I've given up on trying to save people from the abuse their inflicting on themselves. Regarding Poliquin, he seems to be getting more and more 'new age' in his approach. He's got David Boston doing daily enemas and putting him on a Magnesium IV every day (now Boston is using one of Poliquins recommended trainers). If you get a chance, he's also got an article on body fat storage and what hormonally is causing that fat storage, along w/ supplements to assist in lowering bodyfat in trouble spots. If u scroll down click on the hot girl (oxygen magazine cover). Again, just another way of seperating himself from the pack I suppose. To be honest, I respect his advice. I looked at his article, and there are a few women's names mentioned that are Poliquin clients. I did a search on their web-sites and other pics to see how they look, and they dont look to be any more lean or solid than anyone else. You'd think with the outrageous price of training w/ him, his shopping cart list of supplements to take, his overpriced yohimbe cream, overpriced high dose fish oils, and cardio-free GBC and interval training, they'd be leaner and harder than the avg. person. I was actually kinda shocked this wasn't the case. I posted a reply on the woman's board of your site on the "serrano cycle" topic. I listed some of the stuff I've heard Dr. Serrano say and it has got to be some of the dumbest **** i've ever heard. |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
In article ,
Lyle McDonald wrote: Seth Breidbart wrote: In article , Lyle McDonald wrote: At *most*, the variance in fat loss/LBM loss was ~3 lbs over 12 weeks. That is, they might report 3 lbs more fat lost and 3 lbs more LBM maintained over that period. Adding: a. Even then, the effects weren't consistent. Some folks did better on CKD's, some folks better on Isocaloric (and lost more muscle on the CKD). Meaning there was no consistent pattern with one diet being absolutely superior. . . . b. 3 lbs is within measurement error (sorry, this is the cynic in me speaking). Hell, it's within the error of glycogen and water balance. c. 3 lbs of fat vs LBM is hardly relevant for the majority of dieters. For an athlete or bodybuilder, yeah, it matters. But without a consistently superior diet or a way to know who will be ideally suited for one or the other, the above is kind of meaningless (at this point, there's no good way to apply it). A consistent difference of 3 lbs would be worthwhile. If the maximum difference measured is 3 lbs, and some measurements had the opposite sign, then I'd guess the average is unde 1 lb. That's well within the measurement error noise. You'll have to translate this into retard for me cuz I have no clue what you're saying. I was agreeing with you, and pointing out that the difference might be even lower. If one diet was always 3 lbs better than the other, that would matter. If one diet was sometimes 3 lbs better (at most), and sometimes 1 lb worse, then I'd expect it to be less than 1 lb better on average. Given that the "measurement" involves calculating BF%, the error in that measurement leads to bodyfat/lbm amounts that aren't known to within 1 lb. That is, there might not be any actual difference (what was seen is noise in the measurement), and if there is any it is too small to matter much. Seth -- "There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate" -- Will Brink Except sushi rice, seaweed, and wasabi. |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article , Lyle McDonald wrote: Seth Breidbart wrote: In article , Lyle McDonald wrote: At *most*, the variance in fat loss/LBM loss was ~3 lbs over 12 weeks. That is, they might report 3 lbs more fat lost and 3 lbs more LBM maintained over that period. Adding: a. Even then, the effects weren't consistent. Some folks did better on CKD's, some folks better on Isocaloric (and lost more muscle on the CKD). Meaning there was no consistent pattern with one diet being absolutely superior. . . . b. 3 lbs is within measurement error (sorry, this is the cynic in me speaking). Hell, it's within the error of glycogen and water balance. c. 3 lbs of fat vs LBM is hardly relevant for the majority of dieters. For an athlete or bodybuilder, yeah, it matters. But without a consistently superior diet or a way to know who will be ideally suited for one or the other, the above is kind of meaningless (at this point, there's no good way to apply it). A consistent difference of 3 lbs would be worthwhile. If the maximum difference measured is 3 lbs, and some measurements had the opposite sign, then I'd guess the average is unde 1 lb. That's well within the measurement error noise. You'll have to translate this into retard for me cuz I have no clue what you're saying. I was agreeing with you, and pointing out that the difference might be even lower. Ok, just as long as I'm still right. If one diet was always 3 lbs better than the other, that would matter. If one diet was sometimes 3 lbs better (at most), and sometimes 1 lb worse, then I'd expect it to be less than 1 lb better on average. What i was originally trying to get across is that the benefit wasn't consisten. Some folks might do 3 lbs better on a CKD but other did 3 lbs better on a more Zone approach. Given that the "measurement" involves calculating BF%, the error in that measurement leads to bodyfat/lbm amounts that aren't known to within 1 lb. That is, there might not be any actual difference (what was seen is noise in the measurement), and if there is any it is too small to matter much. There is that too. Lyle |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM |
Low Carb Week in Review | Dave N | General Discussion | 0 | November 24th, 2003 12:06 AM |
Latest Low Carb News | Dave N | General Discussion | 1 | November 18th, 2003 07:13 AM |
What is low carb? | Jarkat2002 | General Discussion | 7 | October 30th, 2003 02:21 PM |
named vs. homegrown diets Curiosity about posters who drop out of this NG | JayJay | General Discussion | 16 | September 27th, 2003 02:16 AM |