[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
anonym- you’re obviously well versed in studies, have you looked into the study done on type 2 diabetes with a Paleo Diet vs traditional diabetic diet? It was a cross-over study, but only involved 13 people, for 12 weeks at a time.[/quote]
Thanks, but I’m pretty average at reading these sorts of things – that’s why I’m always editing my posts to add in different thoughts since I never really fully digest them after one or two readings.
I haven’t seen that particular study… got a link?
As a side note, the study has a Data Supplement (not mentioned in the article) that explains the meals were prepared in-house and picked up each day by the participants (with at least one meal being eaten in the facility). So, this does a much better job at ensuring compliance than relying on the subjects to cook their own food, but, again, still leaves something to be desired when stacked against studies carried out solely in metabolic wards.
I don’t think I do. I’m at home now, so I know it’s in one of the Paleo books, but I have an article on it as well that I’ll check to see if it’s referenced.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This was supposed to be about the politics of food…but thanks for boring us out of the thread.[/quote]
Hahaha. Out of ALL the threads in PWI that get derailed constantly–and which you never say a word in complaint–you pick this one to complain, but only AFTER contributing to the derail in a protracted argument that you lost because you didnt know what you were talking abput. If that isn’t a childish case of sour grapes, I dont know what qualifies. You were perfectly fine derailing the thread until you realized you completely outclassed in the subject.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This was supposed to be about the politics of food…but thanks for boring us out of the thread.[/quote]
Hahaha. Out of ALL the threads in PWI that get derailed constantly–and which you never say a word in complaint–you pick this one to complain, but only AFTER contributing to the derail in a protracted argument that you lost because you didnt know what you were talking abput. If that isn’t a childish case of sour grapes, I dont know what qualifies. You were perfectly fine derailing the thread until you realized you completely outclassed in the subject.[/quote]
Outclassed? Not really. He presented the same science that Taubes is debunking.
Say what you will, the science of nutrition in regards to obesity is completely flawed.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This was supposed to be about the politics of food…but thanks for boring us out of the thread.[/quote]
Hahaha. Out of ALL the threads in PWI that get derailed constantly–and which you never say a word in complaint–you pick this one to complain, but only AFTER contributing to the derail in a protracted argument that you lost because you didnt know what you were talking abput. If that isn’t a childish case of sour grapes, I dont know what qualifies. You were perfectly fine derailing the thread until you realized you completely outclassed in the subject.[/quote]
Outclassed? Not really. He presented the same science that Taubes is debunking.
Say what you will, the science of nutrition in regards to obesity is completely flawed.[/quote]
Nutritional science in general is flawed, along with obesity
Zoe Harcombe has some interesting ideas about obesity
^Computer Scientist / Network Engineer. Not a biologist or a doctor of anything.
I believe that the CICO principle is sound from a classicl physics perspective of energy conservation. I’m not going to agree or disagree with some of LIFTYs claims about “Fat needs to be burned immediately” because I just don’t know.
However, if I eat a dozen donuts per day @ 2000 kcal and my imaginary identical twin brother eats steak, wild salmon, greek yogurt, blueberries (you guys get my point) per day @ 2000 kcal, one of us is going to look like shit and the other won’t assuming we both exercise the same. This is one of those things I strongly believe but cannot prove, especially when some evidence suggests otherwise. You just can’t out-train a shitty diet.
I realize this is a little off topic but I tend to agree with LIFTY on CICO being an imperfect model. Not a shitty or usefull one, though; an obese land-whale could benefit from CICO … but even a novice athlete would need something more. After all, if life was all about CICO then why would we ever discuss food varieties and “super foods” and “power foods”, etc. We could all do the Dave Tate bulking diet of McDonalds, Chinese Food, and oil covered pizza … even when preparing for a BB show. Just some thoughts.
it’'s amazing that before CICO was even known that the human body was ever able to stay lean. And don’t give me the bullshit that we’re less active today and have more food available. While those are true, it doesn’t make my first statement any less untrue.
Plenty of people had access to all the food they wanted, yet somehow w/o knowing CICO managed to maintain a near normal body weight.
So would it be fair to say that weight loss as prescribed by CICO is not the same as FAT loss. That is to say, the less body fat as a percentage of bodyweight you have the less CICO by itself contributes to fat loss.
Further, that low carb followed by targeted carbohydrate dieting(carb cycling) with a mild CICO deficit is more effective than just CICO dieting alone for all but the fattest individuals.
In terms of politics:
It doesn’t seem there’s a reasonable argument AGAINST eliminating heavy carbohydrate consumption subsidized by central planning and state intervention.
Further, even for the purposes of the pure CICO approach to what constitutes a “healthy” diet, reducing the profitability of grain farming by removing subsidies by definition increases the profitability of other calorie sources. Therefore, calorie sources that increase satiety like meats and fibrous veggies would bring down the overall caloric consumption to fit a better CICO balance across a population.
In other words, if meat and veggies are relatively cheap then they will be consumed as a higher percentage of calories. This leads to less total calories consumption due to increased satiety with the auxiliary benefit of improved insulin sensitivity.
This reminds me of an interesting discussion I had with a professor last semester about food as a religion… we spent a semester “debunking” popular dietary beliefs and trying to figure out what keeps them alive no matter how compelling the case against them may be. It might make for an interesting thread at some point if people are willing to look at themselves and be truly honest about where their beliefs stem from.
It’s a very interesting phenomenon. It reminds me of the time I was digging into Wheat Belly and was told by JF that he was waiting for someone smarter to jump in to address my criticisms. This was a book that was touted as some sort of panacea for all the ills of Western society by numerous members on this board… almost all of whom were silent once tough questions started getting asked about the science and ethics Davis was relying on to draw his conclusions. And yet, once the dust settled, posters started coming out of the woodwork to again warn of the widespread danger of eating wheat.
The thread in the Supplements forum died out without a single LC advocate addressing a single concern I raised about the study. Crickets have been chirping for pages in this very thread in response to the evidence I have posted to support MY assertion.
I’m not saying my position is infallible, I’m saying that there is a lot of certainty floating around your camp without a heckuva lot of EVIDENCE. Just a lot of SAYING “they” have got it all wrong without a hecukva lot of DEMONSTRATING where the argument fails.
I’m hearing a lot of “conventional obesity research is flawed”… when the only flaws that have been pointed out so far are against the case the LC advocates are trying to make.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Dietary carbohydrates are completely unnecessary as a source of energy.[/quote]
This, people.
Just pay no attention to th fact that a healthy body THRIVES on glucose. That a healthy body PREFERS glucose to all other energy substrates. That a healthy body goes to great lengths to conserve glucose when supplies dwindle. That a healthy body will manufacture glucose to compensate for a shrinking stash. That a healthy body is VERY particular about keeping glucose in the blood at all times. That a healthy body is EXTREMELY efficient at handling the glucose that is provided from the diet.
Here’s a funny bit of trivia: the only two EFAs for humans are alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid – both are PUFAs (Google ‘essential fatty acids’ if you don’t believe me). Therefore, SFAs and MUFAs are unnecessary components of the diet.
^Good argument? Nah, not really. SFAs and MUFAs have their place in a balanced diet. But I wanted to show y’all how lopsided and useless I find statements like that to be.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
However, if I eat a dozen donuts per day @ 2000 kcal and my imaginary identical twin brother eats steak, wild salmon, greek yogurt, blueberries (you guys get my point) per day @ 2000 kcal, one of us is going to look like shit and the other won’t assuming we both exercise the same. This is one of those things I strongly believe but cannot prove, especially when some evidence suggests otherwise. You just can’t out-train a shitty diet.[/quote]
You are making the same mistake that other LC advocates make when researching their position. LC does not invariably equal high(er) protein and LF doesn’t automatically mean low(er) protein.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I realize this is a little off topic but I tend to agree with LIFTY on CICO being an imperfect model. Not a shitty or usefull one, though; an obese land-whale could benefit from CICO … but even a novice athlete would need something more. After all, if life was all about CICO then why would we ever discuss food varieties and “super foods” and “power foods”, etc. We could all do the Dave Tate bulking diet of McDonalds, Chinese Food, and oil covered pizza … even when preparing for a BB show. Just some thoughts.[/quote]
Food variety staves off boredom and allows for a complete spectrum of vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients.
Super foods get their name for the health benefits they are thought to confer (usually believed to stem from their Vv/phyto/mineral makeups).
I am not arguing about the health benefits of LC vs LF diets.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Plenty of people had access to all the food they wanted, yet somehow w/o knowing CICO managed to maintain a near normal body weight.[/quote]
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Plenty of people had access to all the food they wanted, yet somehow w/o knowing CICO managed to maintain a near normal body weight.[/quote]
Why do you think this is?[/quote]
natural foods, especially meat and fat sources allow the body to regulate caloric intake quite well through a variety of mechanisms, along with carbs that are found in nature naturally tend to contain a decent amount of fiber.
Then again I can’t explain the following. I get full off a few eggs and veggies, yet I could crush 2,000 calories of Ben n Jerry’s in one sitting no problem, or 1500 calories of pizza. Both contain protein and fat, and obviously a ton of carbs too.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Zoe Harcombe has some interesting ideas about obesity[/quote]
Anything in particular you’d like to throw out there?[/quote]
She looked into where the idea that a pound of fat contains 3500 calories, and she couldn’t find the source. Whether this is valid, I do not know, but apparently she contacted the British equivalent of dietetics or FDA, something like that and they couldn’t give her an answer.
She also had an intriguing idea (don’t recall it all, podcast is on Sean Croxton’s podcast interview with her), about the actual weight of calories eaten based upon grams of food. To be honest, I can’t recall much on the matter, I just remember being shocked at such an intriguing concept. Whether it was accurate or not, but it made you think. I know this sucks for an explanation but I just woke from a sugar nap
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Dietary carbohydrates are completely unnecessary as a source of energy.[/quote]
This, people.
Just pay no attention to th fact that a healthy body THRIVES on glucose. That a healthy body PREFERS glucose to all other energy substrates. That a healthy body goes to great lengths to conserve glucose when supplies dwindle. That a healthy body will manufacture glucose to compensate for a shrinking stash. That a healthy body is VERY particular about keeping glucose in the blood at all times. That a healthy body is EXTREMELY efficient at handling the glucose that is provided from the diet.
Here’s a funny bit of trivia: the only two EFAs for humans are alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid – both are PUFAs (Google ‘essential fatty acids’ if you don’t believe me). Therefore, SFAs and MUFAs are unnecessary components of the diet.
^Good argument? Nah, not really. SFAs and MUFAs have their place in a balanced diet. But I wanted to show y’all how lopsided and useless I find statements like that to be.[/quote]
Can you explain to me how the human body did fine without complex carbohydrates for many thousands of years until the invention of agriculture?
While I don’t disagree with the usefulness of moderate carbohydrates in a normal diet, the amount of sugar and complex carbohydrates in foodstuffs nowadays is staggering.
I can’t support the following with science but it stands to reason that the body favours carbs because they’re easier to process? But the consequences of that process, in my case at least, gave rise to many unfavourable symptoms.
The general public believes carbs are vital and necessary in their diets. As it turns out this is simply not true. Yet from anecdotal evidence the ketogenic diet relieves many physical problems people experience: acid reflux, IBS, skin issues, obesity, diabetes 2, hypoglycemia and cholesterol and bloodpressure issues.
Shouldn’t this be reason enough to look into LCHF diets more instead of dismissing them?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Dietary carbohydrates are completely unnecessary as a source of energy.[/quote]
This, people.
Just pay no attention to th fact that a healthy body THRIVES on glucose. That a healthy body PREFERS glucose to all other energy substrates. That a healthy body goes to great lengths to conserve glucose when supplies dwindle. That a healthy body will manufacture glucose to compensate for a shrinking stash. That a healthy body is VERY particular about keeping glucose in the blood at all times. That a healthy body is EXTREMELY efficient at handling the glucose that is provided from the diet.
Here’s a funny bit of trivia: the only two EFAs for humans are alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid – both are PUFAs (Google ‘essential fatty acids’ if you don’t believe me). Therefore, SFAs and MUFAs are unnecessary components of the diet.
^Good argument? Nah, not really. SFAs and MUFAs have their place in a balanced diet. But I wanted to show y’all how lopsided and useless I find statements like that to be.[/quote]
PUFAs are not the body’s best source of energy but mostly act as hormonal substrates. The body’s best use of energy come from Mono-unsaturated and saturated fats.
If one is eating a diet high in naturally raised animals there is not even need to supplement with omega 3 because this diet will contain adequate amounts of it - not to mention the highly anti-inflammatory nature of this diet.
Carbohydrates are not necessary (and wreak inflammatory havoc when consumed). Just because they are incidental in plants does not mean we should fuel ourselves with them.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
The general public believes carbs are vital and necessary in their diets. As it turns out this is simply not true. Yet from anecdotal evidence the ketogenic diet relieves many physical problems people experience: acid reflux, IBS, skin issues, obesity, diabetes 2, hypoglycemia and cholesterol and bloodpressure issues.
Shouldn’t this be reason enough to look into LCHF diets more instead of dismissing them?
[/quote]
But actually, glucose can only be stored in limited quantity so if the body favors glucose for energy then why do we only have limited access to it and nearly unlimited access to fat energy? If glucose is so superior as a form of energy why is it toxic and need to be converted to glycogen to be stored for later use?
True, the brain uses glucose but our body is capable of using both small amounts of self made glucose with ketone bodies once it becomes fat adapted.
I am also very curious why there hasn’t been more research into the fact that some people are reporting being able to go off their autoimmune disease related drugs once they adopt the LCHF lifestyle.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I am also very curious why there hasn’t been more research into the fact that some people are reporting being able to go off their autoimmune disease related drugs once they adopt the LCHF lifestyle.[/quote]
And maybe this is an appropriate segue to discuss the political nature of scientific research.
