Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions

wrote:

So on one hand we have a few...what? thousand or perhaps a hundred
thousand people who've had decades long success with Atkins and low
carbing?
And on the other hand we have what? a billion people who've had
centuries of success doing what people here label non-low-carb eating.
Hmmm.......billions and centuries....versus......less than a millon
and 10 or 20 years.
Yes, it looks like a toss up in terms of evidence.

I just don't see why you see much difference between the two. The diet
you're proposing is lots of veggies, some meat and fish and rice. Drop
the rice and add more veggies and you've pretty much got low-carb.

I eat stirfry 3 or 4 times a week myself; I just don't add rice to it,
but have more veggies instead.

Dinner last night was not a stirfy. It was a 1/4 lb tilapia baked in
garlic and olive oil, 1/4 lb green beans tossed in olive oil and roasted
and 1/4 lb okra fried in butter.

Why would this be healthier if I skipped some of the veggies in favor of
rice or noodles?

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

On Oct 25, 5:12 am, Hollywood wrote:
I'm
an
amateur economist. I think it's all about economies. I'm a
professional
organizational consultant, so I think it's economies and something in
the
psychology/zeitgeist of being Asian like some combination of confucian
dynamism, polychronism, and collectivism. And if you want support,
the Asian countries you've mentioned are among the highest in CD,
generally


Uh, I understand polychronism, Confucian dynamism, and collectivism,
but you should have defined what you mean by CD.... CD ?
CD..cardiovascular disease? Chronic diabetes?


That said, controlled carbs is how Homo has eaten for most of Homo
history.
Eat meat, find fruit and veggies, maybe some grasses in places, but no
farming.
So, if you want a large population, how about the 6 billion of us on
the earth
wouldn't have evolved to the point where we could cultivate rice
without eating
low carb, well enough to reproduce and pass on our selfish genes.
Maybe they
were all fat and unmotivated, but that doesn't seem highly correlated
with evolutionary
adaptability. If things in nature are naturally lean, trim and
muscular, isn't that our
birthright as well? And to get there, wouldn't you go with a roots
move, one that
takes you closest to what they did before they had car payments,
diabetes and
large reserves of adipose tissue? That's all anyone going LC is
doing.

Well man has been involved in the cultivation of plants for 5,000 to
10,000 years depending on region and crop. I'd suggest if you want
to go back further than that to have your ideas make sense for your
"birthright" theory then you will want to do lots of studying on the
activity levels found at that time.......as well as the temperature
regulation factors.
One does burn more calories when living in the grand outdoors winter
and summer....and gathering firewood and without any tranportation at
all.

But yes, you are correct, our genetic structure will allow us to
survive and remain slender on your choice of diet, if you include all
the other revelant parts of the environment those peoples lived with.
On the other hand, I guess I'm just biased in wanting examples from
the last 5,000 to 10,000 years where people lived in somewhat "modern"
circumstances... You know, availability of a few standard carb
crops, and a roof over their head. Non-nomadic. A time and place
where a few million people lived in a region and were non-nomadic.

I'd say that model more closely approximates what we all live in
today.

Remember, car payments only began about 100 years ago.
If you lived with the activity level and other caloric requirments
(heat) homo had 10,000+ years ago, I dare say you could include a
fair bit of carbs and still remain slender.

Again, I'm looking for some population on the present day earth where
millions of people live in health and harmony with their genetics
while following your idea of dietary intake for decades.
Does it exist outside of books and few short term followers?

On Oct 25, 6:48 am, Jackie Patti wrote:
wrote:
So on one hand we have a few...what? thousand or perhaps a hundred
thousand people who've had decades long success with Atkins and low
carbing?
And on the other hand we have what? a billion people who've had
centuries of success doing what people here label non-low-carb eating.
Hmmm.......billions and centuries....versus......less than a millon
and 10 or 20 years.
Yes, it looks like a toss up in terms of evidence.

I just don't see why you see much difference between the two. The diet
you're proposing is lots of veggies, some meat and fish and rice. Drop
the rice and add more veggies and you've pretty much got low-carb.

I eat stirfry 3 or 4 times a week myself; I just don't add rice to it,
but have more veggies instead.

Dinner last night was not a stirfy. It was a 1/4 lb tilapia baked in
garlic and olive oil, 1/4 lb green beans tossed in olive oil and roasted
and 1/4 lb okra fried in butter.

Why would this be healthier if I skipped some of the veggies in favor of
rice or noodles?

--http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Yes, I believe it would be healthier with some carbs......rice or
other.
Oh, not for that one meal, but for those who plan to eat in this
method for the next 10 to 30 years.
Again, this for me is not about some weight loss dash. It about
populations of millions living in harmony with their bodies for
decades.
I just don't see any sizeable populations using your example as a
model for long term health.
If I saw a country or region where millions of people ate like your
meal and thrived, then I'd say hey, thats a good model for America.
But I just don't see it.
If you could even give me a good size island, like they do with the
Okinawan example, then I'd say OK....thats good enough.
But I don't accept some anecdotal examples or studies where a few
hundred people do something successfully for 24 months.

Check out the history of Okinawa. How is their weight and disease
with those following the historic model. I do admit some of the
younger generation are falling prey to the same problems we see in the
USA as they begin to include the "new ways".
The past decades of Okinawa did not include "low-carb" and they
weren't doing Ornish, and they weren't vegan or vegetarian.
And i don't believe they were genetic freaks.

I just suggest very gradually moving to a way of eating that one can
follow in peace for 20 to 50 years. I simply don't see any track
record to suggest low carbing is going to end up being that answer or
else we see long term examples in the world.

The world is a lab. We see success and we see failure. Look at the
success and see what they do for diet and activity. Everywhere I see
success I see people who include a reasonable portion of carbs of some
type.
I'm sure you can do it without carbs, but I just don't see it in
large populations.
Some people in America may need some extreme diet. Most need what
works elsewhere in the world.
But it won't make a popular book will it. Certainly not a top 10 on
the NY Times list.
Although from time to time Oprah has had on some alternative dietary
books.

Not sure Oprah is the best example for dieting. She and here
friend.....that guy......are all into selling "healty products" which
appear to just be slight variations on what business has been selling
to America all along in this fattening process. Now the craze is 100
calorie snack sevings.... Great, "I'll take five please!"

Good eating to you...

wrote:

LOOK.......an important point of mine is as follows. Look around
the world.... Humans living all over the place. What do they eat in
areas where the people stay relatively slender.
Not those places where everyone is poor, but where even the middle
class easily stay at a good weight. And not some obscure place like
North of the Artic Circle.......but places where tens and hundreds of
millions of people eat year in and year out, decade after decade and
remind in harmony with their bodies....ie....most don't get fat.

I look at those places and say.......thats the natural way humans are
designed to eat.

Where designed equals evolved. Problem is, that isn't how humans
evolved and it is not what we are evolved to eat. Even using the
entire world in the last 5000 years doesn't give the right data. It's
the wrong evolutionary time scale.

NO, where do normal populations eat normally and have their bodies
end up "normal" as God or who ever designed.

Per evolution, a species that eats a diet for 5 million years plus
has that diet as its ideal. That long ago our ancestors were
fruit eating apes about to descend and walk on two legs. In a
sense, humans *can't* have one ideal diet because we haven't
had the evolutionary time in place to evolve one.

But since animal husbandry and agriculture is under 20K years
old, we are certainly not evolved to eat farmed foods no matter
that it appears to work. We don't know how many diseases
are caused by what we eat.

I don't think Ornish is that nor do I think Atkins is that. In their
own way they are both trying to overcome some unnatural situation.
I think both Ornish and Atkins are a bit like taking pills for a
disease.

Indeed. And you won't find me complaining that low fat is an
invalid method, just that I tried it and it didn't work for me.

I refer to my "natural" eating as described earlier in this post.

The closest humans can come to "natural" is what hunterer
gatherer societies eat, since that's what humans ate for at
least 2-4 million years of our evolution. But look at the
existing hunter gatherer societies and you'll find a range from
almost vegitarian folks who eat mostly roots plus a little easily
found meat through almost carnivore folks who eat mostly raw
meat hunted. What this means is the "natural" human diet
is pretty much anything freshly hunted but grain and milk.

And sure enough, while people in hunter gatherer societies
eat an unbelievable variety of stuff other than grain and milk,
and while they die of injury, the ones who don't get injured
live into healthy old age.

Weird may be a poor choice of words, but could you give me any areas
of the world where tens of millions of people eat this way. I mean,
I'm sure there are some nomadic tribes like those raising herds of
animals who take them from grazing land to grazing land but thats not
how 99% of the worlds population live.

But even the entire modern world is insufficient from an
evolutionary perspective.

People, modern people are
not going to live a lifestyle that is similar to what people do when
"eating off the land" so why twist the concept of what is a natural
diet for normal populations.....

That's the problem - When there's choice folks tend to want
junk food. When there isn't choice folks tend to have grain.

... Low
carb is another version of a diet that is not what people have been
eating for thousands of years..

Incorrect - Low carb is closer to what the most common hunter
gatherer societies have eaten for millions of years. In fact, there
are paleolithic plans that try to do an ancestral diet and most
paleo systems look more like low carb than like any other plan
type.

( oh sure, there were small groups
eating like that but not tens of millions of people) One is a
reaction to the excesses of the other.

It's more an issue how how many levels of excess than what
type is or isn't an excess.

wrote:
:: On Oct 24, 4:43 am, Hollywood wrote:
::: On Oct 24, 3:13 am, wrote:
:::
:::: On Oct 23, 1:37 pm, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
:::
::::: wrote
:::
:::: Too many repeated issues to respond to each.
:::
::: So, to boil it down to the core, your argument is essentially
::: this.
:::
::: 1- Asians were universally slim, rurally, back in the 60's and 70's.
::: 2- They eat until sated, not stuffed
::: 2a- They do so out of natural habit, not economic status.
::: 3- These slim Asians walk everywhere.
::: 3a- The urban slim ones bike everywhere (not mentioned but hard
::: to ignore considering the flocks of bikes in urban China)
::: 4- They eat a lot of white rice and a lot of veggies.
::: 4a- They don't eat much meat.
::: 4a1- The meat they eat is generally fish or fowl.
::: 5- Americans can drop 22 lbs a year by adopting this style of
::: eating. 5a- To summarize, we're talking lower calories, low fat,
::: lowish protein
::: and therefore high carbs as a percentage of the diet.
::
:: Hey, thats not a bad summary. I'd change a few things but what you
:: wrote is not too far from the mark.
::
:: If we want to extreme it, fat wise,
::: it's
::: Dean Ornish - whole grains - car use.
::
:: Yes, if you "extreme it".......you end up with Ornish and the
:: problems you get with that.
:: BTW, you won't find anyone eating Ornish in those tens, and hundreds
:: of millions of Asians I am referring to.
::
:::
::: I don't want to suggest that you're wrong, because whatever it is,
::: it works for most of 2.5 billion Asians (never mind the diabetic
::: Indians of northern India where they shun meat entirely). But in
::: studies, on Westerners, it's darned hard to follow, and generally
::: doesn't work for a
::: lot of them.
::
:: Simply put......Ornish does not work for many Westerners. You have
:: that correctly stated.
:: It did work for some folks who were on the verge of death and
:: attempting to avoid their next massive heart attack. However I don't
:: think we can count on that type of motivation in the general public.
:: Nor would you find it much better going in Asia.
:::
::: Look at the Stamford Study in JAMA. And that's looking at people who
::: need to lose weight, not who are trying to maintain slim physiques.
::: The
::: diet most similar to the Asian diet was the worst failure in terms
::: of compliance and results.
::
:: You caused me a lot of problems... Its Stanford.....not Stamford...
:: (there is a Stamford, Conn.)
:: OK.....after 20 minutes of looking for the Stamford Study, whew! I
:: did find the Stanford study which I remember having read some time
:: ago.. Ornish, Atkins and the rest.
:: Now, I have not re-read the entire study but from what I remember at
:: 12 months Atkins was superior for weight loss at the end.
:: I've always thought, give 50 people a Ornish book.......as they
:: did........and give 50 people a Atkins book.......and at the 6 months
:: or 12 months the Atkins people will have lost more.
:: Either in this study, but I think in another longer study, things
:: had begun to turn either after 6 months or was it 18
:: months......and then the Atkins folks began to come back to the same
:: place where the Ornish people were, which BTW wasn't great.
:: In the end, what I got was that neither plan did very well. As
:: expected.
:: Atkins didn't lie, he just never took a large group out 3, 4 , and 5
:: years.

Well, you're drawing the wrong conclusions. These peopel quite the diet is
large part, since it is so out-of-line with modern western thinking on diet.

:: Ornish isn't wrong, if just people would be willing to adapt to his
:: plan for years and years.

Nonsense. Why would people follow his restrictive BS diet plan? Oh, they
need to be facing HA # 2. Right.

::: From what I know, about 90% don't. Very low compliance.
::
:: Just like in the massive "nurses study" (not for weight
:: loss)....where one group was supposed to aim for no more than 20% of
:: calories from fat but who in reality began about 35% and soon ended
:: up at about 29%........hardly what you could call "low fat".... yet
:: the headlines were that lower fat eating makes no difference in
:: whatever cancer they were studying.... breast or whatever it was.
::
::
::: Or that they can eat more and still lose. And still maintain. It's
::: possible
::: to have two separate models for weight loss that work differently
::: for various
::: people, with varying levels of efficiency and compliance ability.
::
:: yes, you could have two models. I just haven't seen large
:: populations where the other model has been shown to work for most of
:: the people. I like to see large populations doing things that are
:: natural for decades. Then I say, what are they doing, it appears
:: to work.
:::
:: That's something that Taubes talks
::: about at length in the book and it's one of the big problems in the
::: science
::: of obesity and diet for the last 40 years.
::
:: Taubes is promoting a book. Boring success about millions of people
:: who eat in a different manner than his target audience is not going
:: to get the books flying off the shelves.
:: Taubes offers a "nice" way......that people will like to agree with.
:: He isn't dumb. The publisher wanted a version of his orginal message
:: which is very popular.

I see. So anyone who writes a book can't be trusted, but someone posting
obseravtions on the net can. Right!

:::
::
:: Hey, I'll even give you GCBC's ideas are a good way to drop pounds.
:: I just trust people. I trust history and the human model to show us
:: what works for large populations with millions of examples.
:: I'd feel better if you could show me a nation or a region where
:: millions of people were doing Taubes type eating and staying healthy
:: for decades.

That would have been mankind before modernization and agriculture.

:: Or is Taubes new book a new idea, that has never been practiced by
:: tens of millions.

It was common place in this country before "science" stepped in and told
people fat was bad...

::
:: Or do we need a new model...since we no longer are active like we
:: were for hundreds of years.
:: Or do we use a model we see working already.

Who says it's working? Your only metric is they aren't fat. Heh.

:: I see a model in Asia, as one example. It works for then and happens
:: to include white rice as their main source of calories. So I say,
:: hmmmm what are they doing naturally and with ease for decades. I
:: place more trust in that model than in some new idea cooked up in the
:: latest book.

It's not new. I think I've told you this a billion times already.
Actually, very little in Taubes' book is new...have you read it?

:: More than anything Taubes book will do well because it more closely
:: matches what people want to hear.
:: Thats why Atkins was so popular.

REally? You think people want to hear Atkins? Are you kidding? People in
this country by-and-large arent' doing Atkins....for sure!
::
:: I stand back in America and see the huge problem getting worse and
:: worse. The books roll off the printing presses and the people just
:: keep getting fatter. Hope springs eternal in this search for some
:: thing that works.
:: Then I travel to places like those in Asia and I see hundreds of
:: millions not having a problem with there weight.
:: Is it a stretch to think their diet might have something to do with
:: it? It smacks you in the face when you wander around.
::
:: But alas, its not a popular message. We construct every possible
:: reason why its not right for Americans. Then we throw in "extreme"
:: versions like the Ornish plan and prove it won't work.
:: I guess its just those Asian genes.... You know, they're a different
:: species.
::
:: So on one hand we have a few...what? thousand or perhaps a hundred
:: thousand people who've had decades long success with Atkins and low
:: carbing?
:: And on the other hand we have what? a billion people who've had
:: centuries of success doing what people here label non-low-carb
:: eating. Hmmm.......billions and centuries....versus......less than a
:: millon and 10 or 20 years.
:: Yes, it looks like a toss up in terms of evidence.
::
:: But lastly, I'd just say this. If you have a unusual condition or if
:: you simply know you'd never ever be able to eat in the direction of
:: Asians, then by all means go the low-carb route for your health.
:: I'm just putting forth the idea that billions of people eat most of
:: their calories from white rice and noodles and seem to do very well
:: on it.

Well, you've proven yourself to not be very credible. At least you're a
nice person, though.

On Oct 25, 11:04 am, Doug Freyburger wrote:

That's the problem - When there's choice folks tend to want
junk food. When there isn't choice folks tend to have grain.

... Low
carb is another version of a diet that is not what people have been
eating for thousands of years..

Incorrect - Low carb is closer to what the most common hunter
gatherer societies have eaten for millions of years. In fact, there
are paleolithic plans that try to do an ancestral diet and most
paleo systems look more like low carb than like any other plan
type.


OK.....I'll accept your version of a 100,000 year old diet if you or
populations you can show me are, while eating that way, are also
living that way, meaning putting out a similar amount of physical
activity and heating/cooling energy.
I suspect, though we have no historic data from 100,000 years ago,
that these folks were under great caloric stress. Everything required
movement and if you didn't comply, you didn't live long. Very few
people on earth now engage in that model of living and I can't think
of any group in the USA who does so other than some engaged in sport
or very vigorous occupations.

Oh the other hand I do repect our genetics which I agree have not
changed much in 10,000 years.
Not sure what the disease outlook would be if we lived exactly like
those of 100,000 years ago.
Back then living to 80 was not common.
In fact as genetic design goes, we are really on needed for about 40
to 45 years max to pass on our genes and raise the offspring safely to
about 14 years old. Everything else is just frosting on the cake in
terms of reproduction.

How does this model work. What is the success rate per 1000 folks who
take it up?
What do they find 10 years after starting.
I'd be surprised if more than 10% have a reduction of even half their
"excess" weight at the 10 year mark. BTW, I don't think the data for
Ornish would be any better. So few follow the plans long term.

If you can show me a program where 50% of the people lose 50% of their
excess weight at the 10 year mark, then I'll bow down in praise and
declare it the winner.
Thats why I look to countries where most of the people stay in a nice
weight range while making no effort to do so. I believe if you
duplicate that model, even in people with "American" genes, you will
end up with 50% of people ending up with 50% of their excess weight
lost at the 10 year mark.
Those kinds of results would transform America but alas would not end
up with everyone on the cover of Us or People magazine.

I must admit, diet is not everything. I am stunned when I learn how
PE has been largely eliminated from the school day. From K-12, I had
multiple recesses or a hour of PE every day.
And then after school more playing outdoors.

I believe in natural diets and natural exercise. If you eat a diet
you can enjoy for decades and do exercise you love, you will be doing
things that require minimal will power or intent.
Instead, you'll just be doing what you do.....living. It essentially
takes no effort.
If you do otherwise in either diet or exercise, I'm afraid the long
term prospects aren't great.

It would be interesting to have individuals travel to other parts of
the world and live in areas where people are in equilibrium, and just
stay there for 12 months. If I had a weight problem and I was
younger, I'd think about doing that. The cost is minimal, its just
the time that people think is a problem. But what an adventure. I
advise every younger person do make a 3 month to 12 month journey
before they get tied up in family, career, and life.
There are some things you can only do when young and unattached.
Whats the worst that can happen. You go and lose no weight and learn
nothing new? I doubt that would happen but I'm betting you'd still
be happy you went once in your life.

Make it a grand experiment. Stuff like that sets my imagination
alive. I just loved living down in all sorts of other countries
across the South Pacific and Asia.. Enjoyed them far more than
Europe. You know the main thing I learned was eating smaller portions
of meat and how I really didn't want or need a 8 ounce steak. I
didn't discontinue eating larger portions for health reasons, but
after living in Asia it just seemed like a gross excess. And that was
after living in New Zealand for a couple years where, at the time,
meat and dairy were the main diet.
I just felt so much better eating in the Asian model and have really
never gone that far back to the typical American model. Lost my
taste for large hunks of meat and loads of sugar.

Ok.....look I don't mean to disrupt this conversation. Not sure how I
got here. I think it had something to do with making "white" rice
into something bad and to be avoided. My view was that there is
nothing wrong with "white" rice, when eating along with a proper diet
like that found in millions of Asian people.
I hope everyone finds a good path for themselves in terms of diet and
a exercise you simply love to do.
For me and a few others here, it seems to be biking. Give it a try
but watch out our you'll be hooked.

wrote:
Yes, it looks like a toss up in terms of evidence.
I just don't see why you see much difference between the two. The diet
you're proposing is lots of veggies, some meat and fish and rice. Drop
the rice and add more veggies and you've pretty much got low-carb.

I eat stirfry 3 or 4 times a week myself; I just don't add rice to it,
but have more veggies instead.

Dinner last night was not a stirfy. It was a 1/4 lb tilapia baked in
garlic and olive oil, 1/4 lb green beans tossed in olive oil and roasted
and 1/4 lb okra fried in butter.

Why would this be healthier if I skipped some of the veggies in favor of
rice or noodles?

Yes, I believe it would be healthier with some carbs......rice or
other.
Oh, not for that one meal, but for those who plan to eat in this
method for the next 10 to 30 years.

I've been eating low-carb for over a decade; I'm diabetic.

I still don't see what benefit cutting veggies and adding starch would
have. Starch foods have less fiber and less micronutrients than
veggies, so what benefit is there?


Again, this for me is not about some weight loss dash. It about
populations of millions living in harmony with their bodies for
decades.

For me, it's about diabetes and heart disease. I don't think I've ever
discussed trying to lose weight on this newsgroup.


I just suggest very gradually moving to a way of eating that one can
follow in peace for 20 to 50 years. I simply don't see any track
record to suggest low carbing is going to end up being that answer or
else we see long term examples in the world.

Yeah, that's what low-carb is... the way I can eat for life.

In my specific case, the alternative is doing organ damage.


Not sure Oprah is the best example for dieting. She and here
friend.....that guy......are all into selling "healty products" which
appear to just be slight variations on what business has been selling
to America all along in this fattening process. Now the craze is 100
calorie snack sevings.... Great, "I'll take five please!"

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Was Taubes on Oprah or
something?

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

On Oct 25, 3:54 pm, Jackie Patti wrote:

Yes, I believe it would be healthier with some carbs......rice or
other.
Oh, not for that one meal, but for those who plan to eat in this
method for the next 10 to 30 years.

I've been eating low-carb for over a decade; I'm diabetic.

I still don't see what benefit cutting veggies and adding starch would
have. Starch foods have less fiber and less micronutrients than
veggies, so what benefit is there?

For me, it's about diabetes and heart disease. I don't think I've ever
discussed trying to lose weight on this newsgroup.

You are diabetic. I don't know which type. Obviously you are not the
typical person.
Diabetes is not nearly as common in South East Asia. For them, the
white rice is just fine, much as it would be for most non-diabetics in
America, when eaten with other proper foods.

You may not have a need to lose weight, but I'd guess most people on
low-carb diets are doing so for weight loss and the problems
associated with excess weight.

You seem to be suggesting there is no benefit from eating carbs
because they have less fiber and micronutrients.
First of all, I don't agree carbs have less fiber. Have you ever
purchased wheat bran? I add it to my oatmeal which itself has loads
of carbs. I dare say, I get the majority of my fiber in my high fiber
diet from carb sources. Oatmeal, wheat bran, whole wheat pasta, whole
wheat cous cous (very high fiber). As for micro nutrients, I eat a
ton of veggies. Anymore and I think I'd turn green or orange or
purple.
So I can't tell you what to eat for your particular medical condition,
but others can do just fine with the some white rice or far better
with the other types of carbs I've listed above.
Obviously whole grain carb and brown rice are superior to white rice
or white flower products.
I've only said billions in Asia eat white rice almost exclusively and
fine it easy to remain slender as well as healthy. Obviously they
don't at the same time eat all the other stuff consumed in many other
Western nations. If they did, along with their white rice, then I
imagine they too would have the same problems. In fact as has been
mentioned, as their habits are changing, they too are running into
problems. Shows they don't have some genetic protection after all.

I have heard this though. That the primary risk from diabetes is in
fact, coronary artery disease and heart attacks.
In fact I've seen some folks go the low fat route (although not with
high simple carbs) for just that reason since they, as diabetics, are
so prone to heart disease.

In fact after a quick look I found something I remembered from a year
or two ago. I'm not vegan nor vegetarian and I know the lead in this
study is a doctor with an agenda, but still its a interesting study.

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi...ract/29/8/1777

Of course they're discussing Type 2....

I really don't know enough about diabetes to pass judgment on what is
best for particular diabetics except that for many artery disease is
the greatest danger.
If you've had great success with your diabetes for 10 years, then I'd
continue what works.

Just one thought, perhaps one you seen many times, I've visited a
site run by a vegan, vegetarian advocate doctor who offers another
alternative route. He claims great success with his followers, but of
course this is the internet... It takes a lot for me to believe
anyone's claims. Anyway here's a link if one wants to explore this
Ornish-ish type guy.. Dr. McDougall.
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/august/fav5.htm

I like to read all views on diet.... Everyones got the answer!

wrote:

Diabetes is not nearly as common in South East Asia. For them, the
white rice is just fine, much as it would be for most non-diabetics in
America, when eaten with other proper foods.

"Fine" is one thing.

However, you have suggested, repeatedly, that rice is *better* than
vegetables, that one should replace some of the vegetables in one's diet
with rice.

I asked why and you said people couldn't eat low-carb for long. I said
I'd been doing it for a decade and you said that's different cause I'm
diabetic.

You still never answered the question of *why* you think replacing some
of the vegetables in a low-carb diet with rice would be preferable though.

What exactly is white rice doing for anyone that more veggies wouldn't
do better?


You seem to be suggesting there is no benefit from eating carbs
because they have less fiber and micronutrients.

Not no benefit, but significantly less benefit. Rice has almost no
fiber and little micronutrients. I can't see any reason to eat it and
thus crowd cabbage out of my diet.


First of all, I don't agree carbs have less fiber. Have you ever
purchased wheat bran? I add it to my oatmeal which itself has loads
of carbs. I dare say, I get the majority of my fiber in my high fiber
diet from carb sources.

You might. I get *all* of my fiber from veggies and fruits. None from
carbs at all. Been doing so for a decade.

You are proving my assertion that carbs crowd veggies from the diet.
You don't just lose fiber there, but loads of micronutrients.


Oatmeal, wheat bran, whole wheat pasta, whole
wheat cous cous (very high fiber).

Given the evidence that refined grains are less healthy than whole
grains, why do you eat the refined stuff?

I mean, I don't eat grains myself cause of diabetes. I cook for other
folks though. What is wrong with wheat berries, hulled barley, oat
groats?


As for micro nutrients, I eat a
ton of veggies. Anymore and I think I'd turn green or orange or
purple.

On average, veggies have much higher fiber content than grains;
certainly so when we discuss white rice, which is what you've beeing
doing in this thread.

You don't eat nearly as much veggies as you could if you replaced all
your starchy foods with veggies. I mean, that's pretty much what my
diet is - anywhere I'd have eaten a serving of potatoes or rice or
noodles in the past, I eat more veggies now. I use fried cabbage or
zuchini instead of noodles; I make stirfries with twice as much veggies,
etc.

Again, you haven't addressed why you think eating less veggies in order
to have room for white rice is a good healthy choice.


So I can't tell you what to eat for your particular medical condition,
but others can do just fine with the some white rice or far better
with the other types of carbs I've listed above.

I think they'd do better with whole grains, but hey... your mileage may
vary.


Obviously whole grain carb and brown rice are superior to white rice
or white flower products.

It was obvious to me, I am surprised to hear it's obvious to you since
you hadn't mentioned a whole grain yet!


I've only said billions in Asia eat white rice almost exclusively and
fine it easy to remain slender as well as healthy. Obviously they
don't at the same time eat all the other stuff consumed in many other
Western nations. If they did, along with their white rice, then I
imagine they too would have the same problems. In fact as has been
mentioned, as their habits are changing, they too are running into
problems. Shows they don't have some genetic protection after all.

And again... what exactly is the downside of replacing rice with
vegetables and thus being low-carb? I mean, the only downside I can see
is that rice is cheap so replacing with veggies would be a bit costly.


I have heard this though. That the primary risk from diabetes is in
fact, coronary artery disease and heart attacks.
In fact I've seen some folks go the low fat route (although not with
high simple carbs) for just that reason since they, as diabetics, are
so prone to heart disease.

Elevated blood sugars cause blood proteins to glycate, thus forming
arterial plaque. And fructose intake nearly directly correlates to
blood triglycerides.

The best thing *anyone* whether diabetic or not can do for the heart is
to low-carb.


In fact after a quick look I found something I remembered from a year
or two ago. I'm not vegan nor vegetarian and I know the lead in this
study is a doctor with an agenda, but still its a interesting study.

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi...ract/29/8/1777

Of course they're discussing Type 2....

They're comparing a low-fat diet to a high-carb diet; ignoring the
low-carb diet which is better than either.


I really don't know enough about diabetes to pass judgment on what is
best for particular diabetics except that for many artery disease is
the greatest danger.
If you've had great success with your diabetes for 10 years, then I'd
continue what works.

I don't care.

What I want is you to say WHY you think replacing vegetables with white
rice is a good health strategy, what this does for ANYONE, diabetic or not.

You can't - cause white rice has no nutrition to speak of. It's almost
entirely glucose - pure sugar.


--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

On Oct 25, 1:49 pm, wrote:
On Oct 25, 5:12 am, Hollywood wrote:

I'm
an
amateur economist. I think it's all about economies. I'm a
professional
organizational consultant, so I think it's economies and something in
the
psychology/zeitgeist of being Asian like some combination of confucian
dynamism, polychronism, and collectivism. And if you want support,
the Asian countries you've mentioned are among the highest in CD,
generally

Uh, I understand polychronism, Confucian dynamism, and collectivism,
but you should have defined what you mean by CD.... CD ?
CD..cardiovascular disease? Chronic diabetes?

It's a PITA to type Confucian Dynamism frequently. I thought from the
context
it was fine,

Well man has been involved in the cultivation of plants for 5,000 to
10,000 years depending on region and crop. I'd suggest if you want
to go back further than that to have your ideas make sense for your
"birthright" theory then you will want to do lots of studying on the
activity levels found at that time.......as well as the temperature
regulation factors.
One does burn more calories when living in the grand outdoors winter
and summer....and gathering firewood and without any tranportation at
all.

So, 5 million+ years of homo X, or 10K years of grain cultivation. If
you
want to go with the big population, It's not rural Asians eating rice.

But your context point makes all the difference in exporting an Asian
cultural diet 3-5K miles across the ocean, and 5-7 times the
GDP-per-capita divide, as well as any paleo discussion.

But yes, you are correct, our genetic structure will allow us to
survive and remain slender on your choice of diet, if you include all
the other revelant parts of the environment those peoples lived with.
On the other hand, I guess I'm just biased in wanting examples from
the last 5,000 to 10,000 years where people lived in somewhat "modern"
circumstances... You know, availability of a few standard carb
crops, and a roof over their head. Non-nomadic. A time and place
where a few million people lived in a region and were non-nomadic.

Has the metabolism evolved in that period? Did something special
happen in the DNA in the last 10K years that changed everything enough
where the diet we evolved to sapience on isn't the right one anymore?
That's a theory I don't buy, but maybe you have some reason for
thinking it. Because that's basically what your bias towards the
modern experience is saying.

I'd say that model more closely approximates what we all live in
today.

I'd say that what folks in suburban-rural Asia were doing 10-30 years
ago doesn't particularly approximate the lives of most Americans
either.

Remember, car payments only began about 100 years ago.
If you lived with the activity level and other caloric requirments
(heat) homo had 10,000+ years ago, I dare say you could include a
fair bit of carbs and still remain slender.

Give me something better than caloric requirements. It's about
nutrient
density. White rice is fine from a caloric stand point. But it's
nutritionally
bankrupt, or nearly so.

I don't buy this metabolic superman theory of pre-agriculture man
being
able to leap tall buildings and kill rhinocerous with his bare hands.
It doesn't
track unless you think we've evolved a lot. And a lot more towards
being
poorly suited for reproduction and gene survival. It doesn't track.

Again, I'm looking for some population on the present day earth where
millions of people live in health and harmony with their genetics
while following your idea of dietary intake for decades.

Two things.
"Millions of people in health and harmony with their genetics." I
would
add a caveat to that. They have to be from an OECD (That's
Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development) country. In Asia, you have
South Korea and Japan. Find me the harmony with their genetics.
Considering the falling birth rate in Japan (it's currently under
population
maintenance), I don't think you can suggest they are in health and
harmony with their genes from a selfish gene standpoint.

Why do you need a million. 30-2000 will give you a large enough sample
for whatever you want to say about a population, depending on the
population size and with a reasonable margin of error. The study
performed
on the Active Low Carber Forum should work fine for you.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...medid=17014706
Enjoy.

Does it exist outside of books and few short term followers?

See study above.

I don't get why you are so hung on LC not working. It's worked, long
term, for
many people in this conversation thread. Granted, we're not all of
rural
Asia, but that's probably a good thing, since we don't live in rural
Asia.