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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

* 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?

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)

* *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.
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).

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. 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.

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.

- Don Klipstein )

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.

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.

Low calorie, which has been promoted and certainly tried by a lot more
than LC ever was hasn't worked either.

That friend of mine improving his diet dropped from pudgy 160's to lean
around 140 pounds by reducing calories, and did so by reducing fat
calories the most and carb calories the least.

I also have a relative who got leaner from reducing caloric intake
apparently upon doctor advice - and cut calories not disproportionately
carb, mildly disproportionately fat because that's where calorie density
is highest. His percentage of calories from carbs also increased.

I do as well, except from upticking caories from BEvERages and calories
needed to speed recovery therefrom. I weigh about 162 pounds, and with
big bones I am only 5-10 pounds fattier than a "beach body".

So the point is why you choose to slam one, but not the other.

I am angered more by diets advocated by those with books to sell and
requiring spending more $$$ on food.
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.

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.

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.

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.

*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.

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.

* 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".

*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.
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.

*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.

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.

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.

My experience with local and national news on major broadcast TV
channels is closer to the opposite.

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.

As much as I am a Usenet junkie since mid 1995 or so, this thread is
first one I have experienced with that name - and even you managed to
mis-spell it. It's Pritikin.
That makes me think how much of a factor he managed to be.

* 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?

Pritikin did not gain the traction that Atkins did, and I suspect due to
his recommendations not requiring spending more $$$ for food that I see
for Atkins.

Not that I believe much that a diet that is as low-fat as Atkins is
low-carb is better than a well-balanced low calorie diet, though I do have
a friend shedding about 25-30 pounds in 2 years from cutting calories of
all forms, and targeting fats for most reduction (and succeeding by doing
so) on advice from his cardiologist - probably because foods with higher
fat content have higher calorie density.

Along with that relative of mine shedding about 15-20 pounds in 2-3
years as a result of cutting mainly calories, somewhat cutting more in fat
and less in carbs mainly because fat is where a lot of high calorie
density is, though I credit cutting calories.

Including the group that illegally obtained his medical records
and spread the very lie about Atkins that you repeated in this thread?

My opinion is that illegally-obtained medical records of a public figure
indicating opposite of stance of that public figure in a medical area,
when such public figure or estate thereof wants them to remain secret, is
more likely to be truth than a lie.

Meanwhile, weight of Dr. Atkins on his death certificate was 258 pounds.
It surely appears to me that this figure was not illegally obtained, based
on what snopes.com has to say.

*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 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.

There is still the matter of my personal experience of reducing carbs
from 300 grams per day to 100 grams per day being ineffective and you say
that is supposed to be ineffective.

On a 2,000 calorie per day diet, 100 grams of carbs per day is 20% of
the calories. You surely like to call 25-30% of calories from fat as "low
fat".

*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.

I find less than 100 grams of carbs per day slows me down on my bike so
much as to be an impossibility.

I am aware of ketosis, been there, done that. Makes me *slightly*
better from being less hungry and less alert when in calorie deficit.
Ketosis remains considered to be a "stress condition" (my words) by
experts in that area who don't drink the low-carb Kool-Aid.

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.

Everyone I know with a good "beach body" eats more than 100 grams of
carbs per day.

* 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.

With exception of every single person I know who bought his books. And
every single person I know who went from pudgy to lean or stayed lean all
along (not many nowadays) did so from a diet that is definitely low in
calories, and that I suspect you would call low fat and call *not* low
carb.

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

I have gotten into ketosis, been there, done that. I also had appetite
and cravings subside after 2 or 3 days of low-calorie. And mildly low
calorie with a couple hundred grams of carbs per day in my experience
alows me to ride my bike fast enough to burn more calories. Works great
until I succumb to what busts any diet - BEvERages or spicy tasty food.

and cravings disappear. You don't go around feeling hungry.

As I said...

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.

As I have said, if carbs are bad, why should 300 grams per day not be
worse than 150 grams per day?

I suspect, especially with relatives and co-workers buying Atkins books
and the only people I know successfully dieting for weight loss and
improved blood chemistry being ones who went low-calorie and actually
reduced caloric intake less from carbs than other forms of calories, that
low-carb is BS of kind to smell for "following the money".

* *With LC you are satiated and that is the huge difference that makes LC
work for so many of us.

Including nobody I know, even among relatives and coworkers who bought
Atkins books.

* 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's 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
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."

One does not need a biology or biochemistry degree to notice how the
scale reads or how one looks in front of a mirror when naked.

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

Including whe they buy such books? Why should 100% of people I know
successfully getting or remaining lean be other than the ones buying
Atkins books?

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.

I hate PETA, ALF and SHAC even more than the anti-carbers that my family
and others I know to have shown to be better to avoid following advice of.

I consider SHAC and ALF to be criminal terrorists and PETA to be
coddlers thereof, and all of those to be inflammatory along the lines of
Operation Rescue (who even protested Disney "for being excessively
pro-gay" [my words]).

I wish that members of PETA and their ilk and anti-carbers get married
to each other, and find themselves married to each other when they get to
"the next world".

Where's the list of all the interests that low fat benefits?

As much as you like to bash low-fat and low-calorie, I suspect you
should be able to come up with such a list.

Who makes all those low fat products that the supermarket shelves are
full of?

Skim milk - been around as long as people knew it had half the calories
of whole milk? Dairies in general did that ever since butter became a
money-maker - milk fat was used to make butter.

Pretzels - as old as Philadelphia is?

Low fat soup - never got as prevalent as the "Low Carb" tags under
vegetable oils did.

* 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.

He got the heart attack after failing to heed such.

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),

Recent update of his bloodwork: His statin dose was halved a few months
ago, he increased his diet efforts a little, he increased his exercise
efforts somewhat more, and his total cholesterol went from about 46% to
about 56% of what it was during the year before his heart attack. And his
LDL/HDL ratio improved.

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,

When accomplishing weight loss - which was only done for more than 2
weeks by anyone I know by reducing calories and not targeting carbs more
than other forms of calories. Also among people I know, only ones other
than ones who bought Atkins books lost weight for more than 2 weeks.

improved LDL/HDL ratios too. Countless people have reported those
results in the LC newsgroup over the years. So, what makes LF so great

Not that I think fat calories are more fattening than others, but it
does appear to me that a lot of excessive calorie intake is in form of
fat.

and LC so bad?

I would say complete lack of positive experience there and some
significant positive experience doing otherwise by everyone I know.

* 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.

I note lack of a link.

And why would you want to anyway? If you're
a professional cyclist, not overweight,

Actually very mildly overweight, 5 or 10 pounds fattier than a "good
beach body", though 10 pounds leaner than a decade ago. And I expect 10
pounds less fatty than I am jow if I did not like BEvERages so much or
satisfy hunger with "fire hot Cheetos" (tasty, but appetite stimulant like
anything I find so tasty) or kielbasa sausage sandwiches or hotdogs when
the workload schedule gives me little chance to eat anywhere other than a
convenience store before 3:30 PM. Delivering sandwiches for a living
means low chance to eat a decent lunch at lunchtime.

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.

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 )

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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.