Obesity and Food Politics

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]ephrem wrote:
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]

The only aspect of LC dieting I am dismissing at the moment is its alleged superiority for weight loss. I don’t disagree that there are potential health benefits of such a diet for certain populations.

142

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If glucose is so superior as a form of energy why is it toxic[/quote]

Seeing as how you are stating this as a fact (as if we’re all in agreement over it), I’m sure you’ll be able to provide some rationale for this.

Just keep in mind the first lesson of Toxicology 101: the dose makes the poison.

This has to do with reducing osmotic pressure and preventing glucose from leaking out of cells. There’s nothing sinister about it and questioning why it occurs shows an extremely limited grasp of basic physiological concepts.

Sorry if that stings, but Jesus Christ.

143

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Can you explain to me how the human body did fine without complex carbohydrates for many thousands of years until the invention of agriculture?[/quote]

As a side note, though, it seems that people have been doing fine on high carb diets for quite some time now.

Granted, the majority of carbs in the paleolithic diet were from veggies and fruit rather than grains, but I thought glucose, itself, is the devil?

Sauce:
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton%20Paleo%20Nutri%20Review%20EJCN.pdf

144

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If glucose is so superior as a form of energy why is it toxic[/quote]

Seeing as how you are stating this as a fact (as if we’re all in agreement over it), I’m sure you’ll be able to provide some rationale for this.

Just keep in mind the first lesson of Toxicology 101: the dose makes the poison.

This has to do with reducing osmotic pressure and preventing glucose from leaking out of cells. There’s nothing sinister about it and questioning why it occurs shows an extremely limited grasp of basic physiological concepts.

Sorry if that stings, but Jesus Christ.[/quote]

Ok, so what? Context matters, indeed.

Can you show me the studies that prove dietary carbohydrates are essential for life?

Glucose is toxic in doses over a few hundred mg/dl - and people who have damaged their hormonal pathways by over consumption of carbohydrate cannot tolerate it at all without drugs.

Tell me how glucose cannot be considered poison to these people?

Just because human beings adapted the ability to derive energy from carbohydrate does not mean it is the best way to get it.

145

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
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]

The only aspect of LC dieting I am dismissing at the moment is its alleged superiority for weight loss. I don’t disagree that there are potential health benefits of such a diet for certain populations.[/quote]

The reports of people on a ketogenic diet are convincing though, read a few posts here: http://www.reddit.com/r/keto/ and see if that changes your mind.

Ofcourse these people aren’t heavy lifters nor bodybuilders, so take that into account.

146

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Can you explain to me how the human body did fine without complex carbohydrates for many thousands of years until the invention of agriculture?[/quote]

As a side note, though, it seems that people have been doing fine on high carb diets for quite some time now.

Granted, the majority of carbs in the paleolithic diet were from veggies and fruit rather than grains, but I thought glucose, itself, is the devil?

Sauce:
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton%20Paleo%20Nutri%20Review%20EJCN.pdf[/quote]

In case you didn’t know, there’s an obesity epidemic going on right now.

The difference between vegetables and fruits and complex carbs is satiation. You can eat a plate full of pasta or rice and in two hours be hungry again.

Eat a plate full of vegetables and notice the difference.

So with a carb-rich diet a normal [sedentary] person would eat every two hours [I know I did], and get fat in the process.

On keto I eat one large meal a day [sometimes even less] and I’m good for 10 hours or so. After that, if I get peckish, I eat a little cheese or sausage, perhaps some fish but not a lot.

Not only do I lose fat but I gain muscle aswell without lethargy and hunger.

It’s something short of a miracle.

147

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Glucose is toxic in doses over a few hundred mg/dl - and people who have damaged their hormonal pathways by over consumption of carbohydrate cannot tolerate it at all without drugs.[/quote]

There’s that intellectually honest caveat I was waiting for.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tell me how glucose cannot be considered poison to these people?[/quote]

First, explain why you are looking to a diseased population in order to generate blanket statements that include healthy individuals.

148

[quote]ephrem wrote:
In case you didn’t know, there’s an obesity epidemic going on right now.

The difference between vegetables and fruits and complex carbs is satiation. You can eat a plate full of pasta or rice and in two hours be hungry again.[/quote]

So you aren’t gonna join lifty in ranting about how glucose is da debbil? Boooo.

I’m glad you found a diet that works for YOU. Honestly.

149

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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? [/quote]

Aah, the “limited access” but threw me earlier.

If you are talking about why we have a finite storage capacity for glucose yet have the ability to store (nearly) unlimited amounts of fat, it is because fat has the benefits of being more calorically dense and not requiring much, if any, water for storage.

When accounting for water, 1 gram of fat contains almost six times as much energy as glycogen.

Evolutionarily, glycogen is a wildly impractical means of storing large amounts of energy when compared to fat.

150

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Glucose is toxic in doses over a few hundred mg/dl - and people who have damaged their hormonal pathways by over consumption of carbohydrate cannot tolerate it at all without drugs.[/quote]

There’s that intellectually honest caveat I was waiting for.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tell me how glucose cannot be considered poison to these people?[/quote]

First, explain why you are looking to a diseased population in order to generate blanket statements that include healthy individuals.[/quote]

Because I believe relying on dietary carbohydrates as a primary source of energy will eventually lead to many metabolic disorders and diseases - even if one is lucky enough to retain the outward appearance of looking fit and healthy while eating them.

151

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Because I believe relying on dietary carbohydrates as a primary source of energy will eventually lead to many metabolic disorders and diseases - even if one is lucky enough to retain the outward appearance of looking fit and healthy while eating them.[/quote]

Yes, yes… you believe.

You believe CICO is useless bullshit without posting any compelling evidence.

You believe that carbohydrates are universally toxic without (again) posting any compelling evidence.

Your beliefs are built on a poor understanding of human physiology, questionable scientific studies (not your fault, though; you never bothered to read them) and the word of a journalist who has changed his story so many times over the past few years that I honestly don’t know WHAT his specific stance is nowadays. All I know for sure is that it ain’t what he spelled out as gospel in GCBC.

152

All of these autoimmune disorders could possibly be reduced or even eliminated by following the highly anti-inflammatory LCHF diet.

Let’s face it though, I do get the fact that foods are more than just carb, protein, and fat and that there are other nutrients and anti-nutrients found in them. Many of the high carbohydrate foods that are commonly consumed contain indigestible anti-nutrients that mess up metabolic, intestinal, and immune system function - they have nothing to do with carbohydrates, per se.

“Low carb” is a term I use to mean an entire class of foods that share a specific attribute. I makes no reference to the other nutrients found in food.

The reason why I take the “fascist” stance against carbohydrate is because it is not clear to me which event happens first. Is it the body becoming intolerant to excessive carbohydrate or intolerant to specific compounds found in the food?

Could one intolerance cause the other? I don’t know nor do I have the resources to find it all out.

It’s just easier to eliminate dietary carbohydrates in my opinion. I shouldn’t need a published paper to make this decision. Besides, we already “scientifically know” eating them is not necessary to sustain life.

153

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
In case you didn’t know, there’s an obesity epidemic going on right now.

The difference between vegetables and fruits and complex carbs is satiation. You can eat a plate full of pasta or rice and in two hours be hungry again.[/quote]

So you aren’t gonna join lifty in ranting about how glucose is da debbil? Boooo.

I’m glad you found a diet that works for YOU. Honestly.[/quote]

Thank you, and I realise that what works for me doesn’t necessarily work for another.

154

[quote]anonym wrote:

You believe that carbohydrates are universally toxic without (again) posting any compelling evidence.
[/quote]

see explanation of my entire position, above.

155

anonym- here’s the study I referenced about Paleo Diet of a small group of people… if you wanna check it out Jönsson T, Granfeldt Y, Ahrén B, Branell UC, Pålsson G, Hansson A, Söderström M, Lindeberg S. Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2009;8:35

156
157

EXACTLY… “University College London?s Terence Stephenson says that companies wouldn?t spend huge amounts of money on advertising and sponsorship if it didn?t increase their sales.”

that’s why I take issue when people say stuff along the lines that advertising doesn’t do much as far as consumption goes

159

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
All of these autoimmune disorders could possibly be reduced or even eliminated by following the highly anti-inflammatory LCHF diet.

http://www.aarda.org/research_display.php?ID=47[/quote]

First of all, that’s just a list of autoimmune disorders. There is no mention of LCHF diets being used to treat any of them, so I’m not sure what your point is by posting that link. It’s not like you’ve posted anything so far that encourages me to just take you at your word.

But… I DID find it humorous that T1D can be reduced/eliminated by a LCHF diet. Wasn’t aware that such a dietary protocol could jumpstart insulin secretion (hint: this is where you backpedal and say it can it can potentially manage the symptoms rather than specifically treat the disease).

But, I’d be VERY interested in seeing what research you have on LCHF diets being used to reduce/eliminate acute necrotizing hemorrhagic leukoencephalitis, subacute bacterial endocarditis and paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s just easier to eliminate dietary carbohydrates in my opinion. I shouldn’t need a published paper to make this decision.[/quote]

The rest of your post is just more of the usual nonsense I’ve come to expect from you (I’d address it but I already know you have nothing of substance to support your ‘anti-nutrient’ argument so it’s largely a waste of my time to hunt down my research), but this part should be addressed.

It’s just easier for YOU to eliminate dietary carbohydrates. You shouldn’t need a published paper to make this decision for YOU.

Unfortunately, once you decide to take your message to a PUBLIC forum, making generalized statements for the MAJORITY, you DO need to provide research to support your position.

You have shown you don’t have the education to be taken at your word on this subject. You have also shown you lack the scientific evidence to support your position. While neither of these are necessary for you to make decisions for YOURSELF, they sure as shit are a requirement if you want to have your POV taken seriously by OTHER PEOPLE.

160

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
anonym- here’s the study I referenced about Paleo Diet of a small group of people… if you wanna check it out Jönsson T, Granfeldt Y, Ahrén B, Branell UC, PÃ¥lsson G, Hansson A, Söderström M, Lindeberg S. Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2009;8:35[/quote]

Thanks, man. I’ll take a look at it later today.

Here’s a link to the study if anyone else is interested:

161

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
All of these autoimmune disorders could possibly be reduced or even eliminated by following the highly anti-inflammatory LCHF diet.

http://www.aarda.org/research_display.php?ID=47[/quote]

First of all, that’s just a list of autoimmune disorders. There is no mention of LCHF diets being used to treat any of them, so I’m not sure what your point is by posting that link. It’s not like you’ve posted anything so far that encourages me to just take you at your word.

But… I DID find it humorous that T1D can be reduced/eliminated by a LCHF diet. Wasn’t aware that such a dietary protocol could jumpstart insulin secretion (hint: this is where you backpedal and say it can it can potentially manage the symptoms rather than specifically treat the disease).

But, I’d be VERY interested in seeing what research you have on LCHF diets being used to reduce/eliminate acute necrotizing hemorrhagic leukoencephalitis, subacute bacterial endocarditis and paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s just easier to eliminate dietary carbohydrates in my opinion. I shouldn’t need a published paper to make this decision.[/quote]

The rest of your post is just more of the usual nonsense I’ve come to expect from you (I’d address it but I already know you have nothing of substance to support your ‘anti-nutrient’ argument so it’s largely a waste of my time to hunt down my research), but this part should be addressed.

It’s just easier for YOU to eliminate dietary carbohydrates. You shouldn’t need a published paper to make this decision for YOU.

Unfortunately, once you decide to take your message to a PUBLIC forum, making generalized statements for the MAJORITY, you DO need to provide research to support your position.

You have shown you don’t have the education to be taken at your word on this subject. You have also shown you lack the scientific evidence to support your position. While neither of these are necessary for you to make decisions for YOURSELF, they sure as shit are a requirement if you want to have your POV taken seriously by OTHER PEOPLE.[/quote]

Well you seem to have it all figured out.

Good for you.