Low carb vs. high carb diets

[Criseyde]

Thread split from New vegan by doctor's order. I know the split is messy in places; sorry about that.

I think your doctor doesn't know what he's talking about. The lipid hypothesis is pretty well de-bunked -- both for heart disease and for weight. If you want to be a vegan, that's cool, but "fat makes you fat" isn't true. Unaltered fats are good for you, just make sure to supplement with fish oil or cod liver oil to keep your omega 3/omega 6 ratio in balance (or only eat from pastured animals, they have the correct fatty acid profile). And hydrogenated vegetable oils are MUCH worse for you than saturated animal fat.

Carbs, however, set off the insulin response. Eat carbs --> blood glucose rises --> pancreas secretes insulin --> insulin helps the liver convert glucose into glycogen --> if you already have as much glycogen as you can store, your body converts the glycogen into adipose tissue: fat.

Also, eating a lot of carbs makes you eat more, because once your blood glucose levels return to normal, there's some lag before your insulin levels return to normal. The insulin signals that it has nothing to do, basically, which makes you feel hungry again.

By the way, "low fat" stuff usually contains added sugar (in order for it to still taste good so you'll eat it), which sets off this insulin response as well.

Unfortunately, many in the medical profession (and, well, everywhere) don't really know about this. But it's fairly evident in the proliferation of low fat (and high sugar) products in the US and the expanding waistlines of Americans.

[Criseyde]

Also, you might be interested in this: The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D. » Why We Get Fat

[Andras]

Crisryde,

Eating vegetables, fruits and grains (nuts) and carbs. breads, cereal, rice is what recommended and that in moderation. I think I made that clear in the OP..Maybe I did not make this clear, the idea is NOT first and foremost weight loss but avoidance of cancer and other maladies that is linked to saturated animal fats (fast food or other). Google it....

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Also, you might be interested in this: The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D. » Why We Get Fat

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Andras

Crisryde,

Eating vegetables, fruits and grains (nuts) and carbs. breads, cereal, rice is what recommended and that in moderation. I think I made that clear in the OP..Maybe I did not make this clear, the idea is NOT first and foremost weight loss but avoidance of cancer and other maladies that is linked to saturated animal fats (fast food or other). Google it....

Yes, this is what I'm disagreeing with. I don't think saturated animal fats cause cancer or other maladies. I think that the evidence pointing to that is weak (correlation as opposed to causation), and there's a lot of hard evidence to the contrary. I have Googled it... extensively.

It's okay, though -- since this is obviously not what you're looking for, I'll leave you alone now.

[rawxstasy]

I've just started recipes from this book. Amazon.com: Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease: The Revolutionary, Scientifically Proven, Nutrition-Based Cure (9781583333006): Caldwell B. Esselstyn Jr.: Books

I think that is in line with what you are looking for. The recipes are delicious. I feel so much better since I started eating this way.

[votoshka]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

I think your doctor doesn't know what he's talking about. The lipid hypothesis is pretty well de-bunked -- both for heart disease and for weight. If you want to be a vegan, that's cool, but "fat makes you fat" isn't true. Unaltered fats are good for you, just make sure to supplement with fish oil or cod liver oil to keep your omega 3/omega 6 ratio in balance (or only eat from pastured animals, they have the correct fatty acid profile). And hydrogenated vegetable oils are MUCH worse for you than saturated animal fat.

Carbs, however, set off the insulin response. Eat carbs --> blood glucose rises --> pancreas secretes insulin --> insulin helps the liver convert glucose into glycogen --> if you already have as much glycogen as you can store, your body converts the glycogen into adipose tissue: fat.

Also, eating a lot of carbs makes you eat more, because once your blood glucose levels return to normal, there's some lag before your insulin levels return to normal. The insulin signals that it has nothing to do, basically, which makes you feel hungry again.

By the way, "low fat" stuff usually contains added sugar (in order for it to still taste good so you'll eat it), which sets off this insulin response as well.

Unfortunately, many in the medical profession (and, well, everywhere) don't really know about this. But it's fairly evident in the proliferation of low fat (and high sugar) products in the US and the expanding waistlines of Americans.

Yes, THIS! Whenever I hear of a Doctor telling someone to cut down on fat but that "carbs don't make you fat" I want to scream . You are better off eating meat and veg, and cutting waaaay back on breads, cereals etc.

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by votoshka

You are better off eating meat and veg, and cutting waaaay back on breads, cereals etc.

Or just very carefully choose the grain-based carbs you choose. For example, instant oatmeal is very quickly broken down and makes your blood sugar go up quite dramatically (i.e., it's high-GI), but traditional oatmeal is broken down much slower and more steadily, and generally keeps your blood sugar much more regular. With breads, some are slow (low-GI), some are very high (white bread is the devil, as far as my metabolism is concerned). Same with rices, some are slow (Basmati, brown rice), some make your blood sugar shoot up to the sky (Jasmine rice is the worst, but most white rices are just as bad). In my experience (as someone with measurable blood sugar issues), it's the quality of the grains as well as the quantity.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by votoshka

Yes, THIS! Whenever I hear of a Doctor telling someone to cut down on fat but that "carbs don't make you fat" I want to scream . You are better off eating meat and veg, and cutting waaaay back on breads, cereals etc.

Carbs really don't, though... low carb diets make you thin in the same way cancer makes you thin... it's not an indictment of carbs.

I think the problem of breads etc is that they are often "empty calories" and in the case of wheat they contain gluten which, like meat, can put on extra water retention weight.

Just go vegan and see how you lose weight automatically, without doing anything else and without lowering calories. That's water retention weight.

Going vegan is the most powerful single change you can make in regards to weight, as far as my experience. It was the change that has lost me the most weight in my life. And almost all the people I know who have made the change have reported something similar.

Other than that what has helped has been filling out "empty" carb calories with lots of fruit and veg, and avoiding fried foods in general.

[Andrew Gubb]

Carbs, however, set off the insulin response. Eat carbs --> blood glucose rises --> pancreas secretes insulin --> insulin helps the liver convert glucose into glycogen --> if you already have as much glycogen as you can store, your body converts the glycogen into adipose tissue: fat.

And, uh, what does fat do? It doesn't need to be converted. It's fat. It's way easier for the body to store fat as fat than to use it as energy.

I do agree that certain branded "low fat" products are bad and that some fats are better than others. But a low fat diet is definitely a good thing. Animal saturated fat is way better than hydrogenated fat, but that doesn't make it good in and of itself.

[Andrew Gubb]

Science so often loses the forest for the trees. It's not all about such and such an insulin response, or such and such a nutrient. It's how the body reacts as a whole to a food as a whole, all nutrients and all bodily processes as a whole.

"The China Study" is the best book I've seen for whole - or holistic - thinking in terms of the scientific evidence around health. I think it came to a conclusion of a plant based diet exactly because it didn't focus on any detail in exclusion but made a very wide scope investigation.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Science so often loses the forest for the trees. It's not all about such and such an insulin response, or such and such a nutrient. It's how the body reacts as a whole to a food as a whole, all nutrients and all bodily processes as a whole.

"The China Study" is the best book I've seen for whole - or holistic - thinking in terms of the scientific evidence around health. I think it came to a conclusion of a plant based diet exactly because it didn't focus on any detail in exclusion but made a very wide scope investigation.

lol scientific evidence and the chinda study in the same sentence.

[Andras]

It is interesting that my doctor brought up "china study", but you do not need to be a doctor to realize that Asians who actually live in Asia are skinny and in general enjoy better health than Americans. Now, this has a great deal to do with portion size too, but consider that even non-vegan Asians eat less meat, especially less beef. This is a big enough sample while general in scope to put to rest most US low carb., protein only, pseudo scientific "diets", where 1:3 in the USA are obese. In a obese country like us, diets come and go - it is big business, but curiously not very effective. I rather listen to my doctor then these other experts, no offense

Originally Posted by russianrocket

lol scientific evidence and the chinda study in the same sentence.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Andras

It is interesting that my doctor brought up "china study", but you do not need to be a doctor to realize that Asians who actually live in Asia are skinny and in general enjoy better health than Americans. Now, this has a great deal to do with portion size too, but consider that even non-vegan Asians eat less meat, especially less beef. This is a big enough sample while general in scope to put to rest most US low carb., protein only, pseudo scientific "diets", where 1:3 in the USA are obese. In a obese country like us, diets come and go - it is big business, but curiously not very effective. I rather listen to my doctor then these other experts, no offense

American obesity has nothing to do with eating too much beef or low carb. And if anything, America eats far too much carbohydrates.

You're doctor is one single person, with one single education. To take the word of one person, is ignorant, no offense. Do your own research.

Of COURSE your doctor brought up the China Study. The study that has been debunked thoroughly.

Diets come and go, because diets aren't effective. That's an easy one. Our country is not like other countries. We eat a lot of crappy food, period. Eating healthy food, whether it's meat, dairy, or veggies, will always win out. Even without portion control. Portion control is only required, when the food you are eating is processed. It's very hard to over eat on non processed healthy food.

[firenexx]

LOL.

"The China Study has been debunked thoroughly"

"But the debunking has also been debunked"

"No, read this lady's debunking, it is teh best."

"Yes, but read this person's refutal of her debunking. It is spot-on."

"Read this blogger's link to 25 debunkings by MDs"

"Read THIS blogger's discussion and refutal of all the points commonly made in TCS-debunking articles. Also he is an MD."

People, people, doesn't this happen ad nauseum in every thread where someone mentions the China Study? Maybe "The China Study" should be censored out the same way ♥♥♥♥ and ♥♥♥♥ are.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by firenexx

LOL.

"The China Study has been debunked thoroughly"

"But the debunking has also been debunked"

"No, read this lady's debunking, it is teh best."

"Yes, but read this person's refutal of her debunking. It is spot-on."

"Read this blogger's link to 25 debunkings by MDs"

"Read THIS blogger's discussion and refutal of all the points commonly made in TCS-debunking articles. Also he is an MD."

People, people, doesn't this happen ad nauseum in every thread where someone mentions the China Study? Maybe "The China Study" should be censored out the same way ♥♥♥♥ and ♥♥♥♥ are.

So what's your point? If someone posts about the China Study being god, then what's wrong with telling them it's been debunked? Or any of the subsequent debunkings? Would you rather have them think that no one has ever questioned the China Study, instead of showing them that people have?

And I don't think I've seen a debunking of the china study debunk. Unless you consider campbells response to Denise, which was then debunked too.

Or perhaps there is a debunking of the dozen or so other China Study debunks?

Show us all, so that we know.

[Andras]

Debunked by who? The American Dairy Association or Ranchers for beef lobby, or perhaps pork is the other white meat lobby?
Care to post some links? Oh, please do not post links from this forum...
I rather see some university sponsored links, like I posted prior on cancer and beef.

Originally Posted by russianrocket

The study that has been debunked thoroughly.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Andras

Debunked by who? The American Dairy Association or Ranchers for beef lobby?
Care to post some links?

jeez, biased much? You are telling US to google?


This is THEE debunked of the China Study
The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet

the one that set the trend. The one that got Campbell all riled up and running for the hills.

And it was done by a raw food vegetarian. They've tried to smear her, but no one has managed to. She has no connection to anything that would show her as being biased.

and if you really wanna read.

The China Study Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet

Just keep in mind, that the stuff is hard to read, as it's scientific.

It's been absolutely, and exhaustively debunked.

If you don't have the time to read, then watch the video
China Study Debunked by Denise Minger (part 3 of 4) - YouTube

[Acting Like Godot]

Americans and Australians basically eat alike ... That is, way too much.

To give you a general sense of how this compares to average Asians .... Basically, when I take my family to Australia, we eat like this at restaurants:

1. I eat a kids size meal
2. My wife eats a kids size meal
3. My two kids share one kids size meal

And, in a reasonably generous restaurant, we have leftovers ....

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Americans and Australians basically eat alike ... That is, way too much.

To give you a general sense of how this compares to average Asians .... Basically, when I take my family to Australia, we eat like this at restaurants:

1. I eat a kids size meal
2. My wife eats a kids size meal
3. My two kids share one kids size meal

And, in a reasonably generous restaurant, we have leftovers ....

And, I can say that you don't eat enough? Who are you to decide what's too little and what's too much?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

That being said, red meat is not 'unhealthy' in and of itself.

It's a big risk factor for colon cancer, which is one of the most common cancers and a leading cause of death in most developed countries.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

It's a big risk factor for colon cancer, which is one of the most common cancers and a leading cause of death in most developed countries.

No, no it's not. We have the China Study to blame for misinformation like that. Denise debunks that pretty easily in the first link I posted.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

And, I can say that you don't eat enough? Who are you to decide what's too little and what's too much?

Oh, you can decide for yourself.

You could for example take the view that Americans And Australians are just about ok, in terms of body weight, and obesity is not a national challege for either nation.

And that the rest of the world is underweight or starving.

Up to you.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

No, no it's not. We have the China Study to blame for misinformation like that. Denise debunks that pretty easily in the first link I posted.

There are numerous studies that establish a link between colon cancer and red meat.

Red meat and colon cancer

Including studies that specifically examine colon cancer and red meat.

(Not like the China Study which examines a wide range of diseases and food types, and therefore easily leaves itself wide open to criticisms and attacks on many different fronts).

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Oh, you can decide for yourself.

You could for example take the view that Americans And Australians are just about right, in terms of body weight, and the rest of the world is underweight or starving.

Up to you.

It has nothing to do with how much food, but with the types of food.

Who cares about in terms of body weight? I know plenty of people with low body weights that eat much more then Asians. I'd never wanna look like most Asians, and that's my honest opinion. They are usually small and skinny. If we are generalizing here.

So again, you come on here and say that we eat too much. But, that's just your opinion. You seem to think that everyone else eats just enough.

But then again, what's that got to do with this discussion anyways?

[Acting Like Godot]

If you think that the amount of food you consume is irrelevant to a thread on health and nutrition, then please just ignore my previous post.

In any event, I was merely elaborating on Andras's point about eating too much.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

There are numerous studies that establish a link between colon cancer and red meat.

Red meat and colon cancer

Including studies that specifically examine colon cancer and red meat.

(Not like the China Study which examines a wide range of diseases and food types, and therefore easily leaves itself wide open to criticisms and attacks on many different fronts).

Studies Dispel Myth Of Cancer-causing Red Meat
Eating Red Meat Will Not Increase Colorectal Cancer Risk, Study Suggests

plenty of studies disproving it. I've seen some of the crap harvard has come out with. I've seen them even disprove themselves before.

There was also a study done, that showed that over 50% of studies are false. So, more or less, there is a 50/50 chance that either one of our studies is right or wrong.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Andras

Debunked by who? The American Dairy Association or Ranchers for beef lobby, or perhaps pork is the other white meat lobby?
Care to post some links? Oh, please do not post links from this forum...
I rather see some university sponsored links, like I posted prior on cancer and beef.

And just for good measure, because you changed your post, and probably won't like the links I posted.


STATS: Harvard's Inconvenient Data About Diet and Cancer

And while we are at it, being sponsored by a university means jack diddly and squat. Being sponsored by anyone, is actually worse then not being sponsored. She has no reason to lie about her study. These Harvard people are studying under a professor that has a clear bias against red meat, and you expect anything to come out of there that would even be remotely pro meat?



Seems to be that the only things you guys ever throw at us, is the Harvard study, or the china study

[Acting Like Godot]

Good for you then.

Go on eating all the red meat you like.

Meanwhile, as most available studies implicate red meat as a risk factor, and only a few indicate otherwise, I will moderate my own red meat consumption.

[Acting Like Godot]

Russian Rocket, I merely quoted a Harvard article ( not Harvard's own studies) which cited 31 studies done around the world, implicating red meat as a colon cancer risk factor.

No need to get so uptight. Feel free to eat whatever you want.

[russianrocket]

Oh look, Harvard says that red meat can cause heart disease

Shifting Protein Sources Away from Red Meats May Reduce Risk of Heart Disease in Women - August 16, 2010 -2010 Releases - Press Releases - Harvard School of Public Health


wait, no, Harvard says red meat doesn't cause heart disease. Only processed red meat
Eating Processed Meats, but Not Unprocessed Red Meats, May Raise Risk of Heart Disease and Diabetes - May 17, 2010 -2010 Releases - Press Releases - Harvard School of Public Health

and here he is again

Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Incident Coronary Heart Disease, Stroke, and Diabetes Mellitus

Background— Meat consumption is inconsistently associated with development of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and diabetes mellitus, limiting quantitative recommendations for consumption levels. Effects of meat intake on these different outcomes, as well as of red versus processed meat, may also vary.