A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Weightwatchers
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Low carb diets



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old December 31st, 2003, 02:30 PM
gman99
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #242  
Old December 31st, 2003, 02:50 PM
Hoff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?


  #243  
Old December 31st, 2003, 04:59 PM
Sarah Jane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 ).

  #244  
Old December 31st, 2003, 05:32 PM
pete
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #245  
Old January 6th, 2004, 02:44 AM
Seth Breidbart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #246  
Old January 9th, 2004, 12:15 AM
Lyle McDonald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Latest "Net Carb" Scam? Jenny Low Carbohydrate Diets 7 June 26th, 2004 07:00 PM
Article: The TRUTH About Low Carb Diets by Keith Klein Steve General Discussion 24 June 7th, 2004 09:05 PM
Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory John Low Carbohydrate Diets 14 March 30th, 2004 05:32 AM
Low Carb intelligence vs. low carb STUPIDITY Steven C. \(Doktersteve\) Low Carbohydrate Diets 6 February 5th, 2004 01:12 PM
low carb fad diets do work in the short-term rob Weightwatchers 3 October 19th, 2003 02:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.