Mummies and Carbohydrates

[GregLee]

In other words, calories in/calories out is true, but not helpful in understanding weight gain or loss.

If we assume Taubes is right and take the task to be to explain how this could be to a skeptical audience, I think your hypothetical pill explanation works just fine. But the problem comes with an audience not willing to assume that Taubes is right. A hypothetical pill cannot possibly provide evidence for a scientific theory. We'd have to look at the real world, not a world of our imagining.

 

[Webzter]

I need to learn more about Taubes' research. Does he suggest reduced calorie in addition to the high protein?

I know, just based on my own experience, that certain foods affect me in drastically different ways. I'm sure there's not a one-size-fits-all diet, but low carb (at least low refined carb) + high protein would, I think, resonate with my metabolism. I find some carbs fill me up much better than an equal amount of calories of another carb. Refined sugars just make me hungry and want to eat more where as potatoes fill me right up.

But, my diet is one of moderation and paying attention to how my body reacts. Highly subject and personal and not at all scientific.

eta: for example... I just had bbq chicken for lunch (about 4 oz-5 oz worth) and was full. I then had some of that syrupy crap Fanta soda (because it's in the house, that's why) and now I'm hungry. Not physically hungry, but my body is giving me signs I normally associate with hunger. Last night, our awesome Indian neighbor brought over these little puff pastries filled with potatoes and greens. A small handful of those filled me up as well as anything.

 

[ERD50]

For those who are sceptical of the carb theory and Taubes' articles, or who just like to have other informed viewpoints (I stress informed, because there are more crackpot nutritionists populating the internets than even crackpot investment theorists) - I would recommend a look at Stephen Guyenet. Whole Health Source

Thanks Ha - I'll check that out later, along with googling that satiety index I mentioned.

He also discusses why it may be easier to lose weight on relatively bland and unpalatable diets.

Ha

That hardly requires an explanation!

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

For those who are skeptical ... - I would recommend a look at Stephen Guyenet. Whole Health Source

Ha

Thanks Ha - I'll check that out later, along with googling that satiety index I mentioned.

OK, did some looking around there. A lot to digest (OK, pun intended), but I didn't get the sense that he strongly favors one diet type over another - a few quotes:

Whole Health Source: Food Reward: a Dominant Factor in Obesity, Part III

So here we have four diets that are diametrically opposed to one another. On one hand, we have low-fat vs. low-carbohydrate diets, and on the other, we have vegan vs. high-meat diets. All four cause a spontaneous decrease in calorie intake in overweight people, all four cause fat loss, and all four improve metabolic markers in overweight people with diabetes risk factors.

I get a bit lost there - what were these people eating before these diets? Compared to what? And if I read correctly, there was no specific calorie restriction applied, they just told people to eat meals that focused on these food groups. It almost sounds like placebo effect - they told me I'm on a diet, so I lost weight? Could be, there is a lot of psychology to this, IMO. As an example, when I exercise, I probably do better than what the pure calorie-burning numbers would indicate. Why? Because if I work out for 30 minutes, I don't want to 'throw away' all that effort with a second helping of dessert. IMO, it's a mistake to ignore what our brain/body is telling us.

Again, if I parsed this correctly, comparing low-fat, non-calorie restricted diets to low-carb, non-calorie restricted diets:

Here's what they found:

Low-fat intervention groups showed a greater weight loss than control groups

and ( assuming macronutrients refers to: fat, protein, carbohydrate) ...

I think that an optimal diet for lean healthy people is probably not restricted in macronutrients, and if anything a diet biased toward carbohydrate is better for overall long-term health than one biased toward fat.

I'll need to keep reading, but I feel this is going to reinforce my limited knowledge in this area - eat a variety of fresh, minimally processed foods; limit refined carbs; balance the rest; focus on smaller calorie portions of filling foods (that satiety index thing).

More on the satiety index (basically measures how hungry someone feels 2 hours after eating a 240 calorie portion of this food):

Satiety Index | Diabetesnet.com
Fullness Factor™ – NutritionData.com
A satiety index of common foods. [Eur J Clin Nutr. 1995] - PubMed result

• Potatoes gave the highest satisfaction, seven times higher than the least-filling croissants.
• Whole grain breads are 50% more filling than white breads.
• Cakes, donuts, and cookies are among the least filling.
• For fruits, oranges and apples outscore bananas.
• Fish is more satisfying, per calorie, than lean beef or chicken.
• Popcorn is twice as filling as a candy bar or peanuts.

Holt's Food Satiety Index is the first of its kind demonstrating that foods with a high-fat content create almost instant cravings for more of the same.

...

"Fatty foods are not satisfying, even though people expected them to be", says Dr Holt. 'We think the reason is that fat is seen by the body as a fuel which should be used only in emergencies - it stores it in the cells instead of breaking it down for immediate use. Because it doesn't recognise the fat as energy for immediate use, the body does not tell the brain to cut hunger signals, so we go on wanting more. Carbohydrates are the opposite - they raise blood glucose so the body knows it has got enough fuel to be going on with.'

Overall, the carbohydrates deter nibbling best, while protein-rich foods such as cheese, eggs, baked beans, meat and fish come second, and fruit third. But there are big differences between the satisfaction value of foods within the same group.

I don't know enough to say if that explanation holds water, and I'd like to see these tested for a three- four hour period to better measure how it might hold off 'between snack/meal' hunger, but the concept seems sound to me. Focus on foods that are more filling relative to their calorie content, regardless of what food group they belong to. Balance your food groups within those guides as much as possible. That would seem to help with portion control, and it fits in well with what I think about the brain/body/numbers interaction.

After seeing that high index for baked potatoes a few months back, I've included 1/2 of a leftover baked potato in my lunch more often. A little cheese melted on top, and it really does seem to be very filling for a small amount of food. I need to keep building on this concept.

If we assume Taubes is right and take the task to be to explain how this could be to a skeptical audience, I think your hypothetical pill explanation works just fine. But the problem comes with an audience not willing to assume that Taubes is right. A hypothetical pill cannot possibly provide evidence for a scientific theory. We'd have to look at the real world, not a world of our imagining.

Actually, I don't have any problem with the hypothetical construct. We could just as easily substitute a very real zero calorie glass of water for that four calorie pill, it wouldn't change anything in the presentation. My problem is, there is no logical progression that leads to any conclusion. So you are hungry after the water/pill? Where do carbs fit in there - I can substitute fats or proteins in that story and nothing changes w/o data to back it up. And I'm confused as to why TromboneAl would present this as being convincing in any way. That's why I made my 'drinking the Kool-Aid' comment, it strikes me that only a 'true believer' would see any meaning to that story. And for some background, I enjoy T-Al's posts, I agree with him in many areas (probably far more than I disagree with, but it's not something I ever tried to tabulate), so I'm a little surprised at this disconnect.

T-Al seems to think that low-carb is a slam-dunk, but I don't see the evidence in any of these studies. AFAIK, it only appears like a slam-dunk in Taubes presentations, but as I've said before, those really strike me as cherry-picked and twisted with conclusions 'proven' with the conclusion built into the 'proof'.

All this food talk made me hungry! - ERD50

 

[Katsmeow]

You are a little more ecumenical than I am. That is, I'm less accepting of other causes of obesity, attracted instead to a single theory that explains most people's obesity. Namely: although many people can eat lots of carbs without getting fat, those who are quite overweight or obese are that way because of carb consumption.

I do think that refined junk carbs do have a lot to do with obesity and aren't good for you. I even agree that low-fat is not a goal to strive for.

That said, I think the case for low carb being a healthier way to eat is more compelling than the argument that low carb is a better way to lose weight. From the studies that I've read, people on a low fat diet don't lose significantly more weight than people on a low carb diet. But most studies show the converse is true as well - low carb diets don't lose significantly more weight.

And there is simply not evidence to support the idea that if you, for example, eat 2000 calories a day low carb you will lose more weight han the person eating 1200 calories a day with a high carb/low fat diet. Taubes seem to say that calories don't matter and that seem to be wrong.

If high carbs by themselves caused obesity then low carb diets should cause people to lose more weight than high carb diets. But they don't.

 

[haha]

OK, did some looking around there. A lot to digest (OK, pun intended), but I didn't get the sense that he strongly favors one diet type over another - a few quotes:

Whole Health Source: Food Reward: a Dominant Factor in Obesity, Part III

I see Stephan occasionally in the medical library, and as I mentioned before, I met Gary and talked to him one to one after his speech. They each personally follow diets that reflect their writings. Neither one is overweight. Gary must be 20 years older than Stephan, and he does have a more powerful appearing physique and to my eye a lower body fat %, though these things can be very misleading in normal clothing.

Stephan must eat 3-5 potatoes/day. Potatoes are a very high glycemic food, it is next to impossible that they are ideal for someone who has meaningful weight problems, because meaningful weight problems means that a meaningful metabolic derangement exists. All this stuff about satiety seems kind of strange to me. I have never heard anyone who was eating low carb say that hunger was a problem. It certainly is not for me- though on a workout day, about 3 hours after finishing I am going to eat come Hell or high water, so I have to see to it that I have suitable food on hand.

I have heard people try low carb and basically decide that being thin was not worth giving up muffins and cookies. What can intelligently be said about this? To me, not that low carb did not work, but that to some people cookies are worth more than leanness.

Ha

 

[ERD50]

... All this stuff about satiety seems kind of strange to me. I have never heard anyone who was eating low carb say that hunger was a problem.

OK, so I'll go along with your statement that low carb people don't have a problem with hunger (I don't know if that is true across the board, but I'll accept it for now). More later...

I have heard people try low carb and basically decide that being thin was not worth giving up muffins and cookies. What can intelligently be said about this? To me, not that low carb did not work, but that to some people cookies are worth more than leanness.

Ha

Again, the conclusion is being wrapped into the statement. The way you phrase that, we have to assume that low-carb is the only path to being thin. So that leads to only one answer, but it may be a 'set-up'. The studies you pointed to don't seem to say that low-carb is the only path to being thin.

This is the problem I have with Taubes, and we see it in some political/financial threads. Phrasing like - well, of course you have to admit the stimulus program was a success, because it saved the country from financial ruin. The conclusion is wrapped into the statement.

Regardless, I don't know if anything intelligent can be said about someone deciding that xyz is more important than being thin. But in the end, intelligent or not, people take actions that keep them from being thin (or we would have no overweight people). I read that people get bored with low carb, it's hard to avoid some favorite foods, or other 'excuses' for why they can't stick to it. I can rephrase your statement to apply to any diet - if people would just stick to portion control, or the Mediterranean diet, or this or that, they would lose weight. It doesn't mean those diets don't work, but that to some people larger portions or different foods are worth more than leanness. But many don't stick to the diet, and we need to face that.

Now, if an individual finds that low-carb works for them, and they are able to stick to it, and get good results, then they have their solution. But is that the right solution for everybody? Who is to say? Not everyone loves the same things. I love heaps of black pepper on some foods, DW hates it on anything. Is one of us 'wrong'?

Getting back to satiety index - if we are willing to accept that different diets may be best for different people, then perhaps satiety would help those interested in portion control. In that way, it could be very useful. It may be irrelevant to a low-carb person, but that doesn't make it useless to others.

-ERD50

 

[Purron]

I haven't studied the diets like HaHa and T-Al have, but can offer my personal experience: cutting way down on carbs and sugary foods/drinks resulted in a significant weight loss.

Last night we grilled steaks. Instead of a baked potato on the side, we had some veggies with a little cheese melted on top and a side salad. It was awesome!

We're eating more non processed foods - veggies, salads, fresh meat - and way less potatoes, bread and pasta. Not hungry, have lost weight and still splurge on carbs once in a while.

I don't try to find low carb replacements for things like bread, pasta and potatoes - I just consider these items a treat and serve them less often and in smaller portions. For example, DH and I love spaghetti and used to have it weekly. Now it's a once a month treat with less pasta and more sauce and a bigger side salad.

My doctor is happy. He's very mainstream in his thinking - not into the low carb stuff - but thinks it's been good for me.

 

[SunsetSail]

I haven't studied the diets like HaHa and T-Al have, but can offer my personal experience: cutting way down on carbs and sugary foods/drinks resulted in a significant weight loss.

Same here. Plus I eliminated the need for tums and proton pump inhibitors for the first time in 15 year < a week after changing my diet. DW says I stopped snoring prior to any meaningful weight loss. Maybe it was a hidden gluten sensitivity. Maybe my physiology and body chemistry is somewhat unique. I doubt it, but I don't know.

I feel great and enjoy food even more now. We had grilled T-Bones and heaps of green chard last night. It was fantastic. I had 1/2OZ of 100% coco chocolate for dessert.

 

[ERD50]

SunsetSail and Purron, I'm glad your choice is working for you. However, as the saying goes, the plural of anecdotal is not data. I'm sure I could dig up anecdotal evidence of all sorts of diets working for people, of people happy with their diet. According to the sources that Ha provided, just about any approach seemed to bring long term weight loss. Plus, I'm not sure your approach really fits what Taubes would call 'low-carb', but that might not matter.

As for my own story, about 8 years ago I decided to trim down and wanted to lose ~ 10-15#. I did it by portion control, and it really was not hard at all, and I wasn't hungry or deprived (though you rarely get that 'full' feeling many of us have become accustom to). Over a period of a few weeks, I went step-by-step to learn just how many calories were in a meal/snack, and I tried to balance each meal/snack with some fat, carbs and proteins, and keep the daily calories to ~ 1700-1900. I ate dark chocolate (the only kind I like) every day. I didn't care about fast weight loss, slow and steady was fine with me, and I lost ~ 2# every 3 weeks with very little effort. I felt better, and my lipid #'s improved.

When I read Taubes, he seemed to say this was impossible.

Now, I did 'fall off the wagon'. Even though portion control wasn't hard, it did take a constant vigilance to be aware of how many calories I put in my mouth at each meal. I got lazy. But I try to keep up with information, maybe I'll get motivated one day, and I want to take the best route for me. And I think the satiety index could help.

But friends on low-carb also fell off the wagon. I don't think the studies show any big improvement in long term weight loss with low-carb over others. But again, if one diet fits your style and you find it easier than another, that might be the 'right' answer for you. With these books on the best seller lists and all the talk, you'd think obesity would be solved by now.

-ERD50

 

[calmloki]

I finally figured what the problem is!
I should have figured it out sooner.

It's the shampoo I use in the shower.
When I wash my hair, the shampoo runs down my whole body.
Printed very clearly on the shampoo label it reads,
"FOR EXTRA VOLUME AND BODY."

I have gotten rid of the shampoo and
I am going to start using Dawn dish soap.
On its label reads, "DISSOLVES FAT THAT IS OTHERWISE DIFFICULT TO REMOVE."

 

[Katsmeow]

I have heard people try low carb and basically decide that being thin was not worth giving up muffins and cookies. What can intelligently be said about this? To me, not that low carb did not work, but that to some people cookies are worth more than leanness.

But...for weight loss...does low carb work and nothing else works? I'm sure that isn't true because plenty of people lose weight but don't eat low carb (and plenty do, of course).

Or, is it that other ways to lose weight work but don't work as well as low carb? That you lose weight faster with low carb? That you keep weight off better with low carb? If the evidence was clear cut on that I would do it in a heartbeat.

But, it doesn't appear that the evidence supports that.

Here is an example of a recent study. Low carb diet was successful for weight loss. But so was low fat.

Weight and metabolic outcomes after 2 years on a l... [Ann Intern Med. 2010] - PubMed result

I just don't see that the evidence is there that for weight loss a low carb diet works any better than a low fat diet. In reality, for weight loss, I suspect that the best diet for the individual is which one the individual can stick to the best. For some people that will be low carb and for another it will be low fact. (For me, personally what works best is portion control and something that is neither low fat nor low carb).

 

[haha]

ERD, you are an excellent internet argument guy, really good. You don't get mad, you are unfailingly polite, you are well informed, you are very clever in the way that you selectively pull up anecdates, then studies, then chide others for thinking that anecdotes are data. You mis-interpret or misstate authors such as Taubes statements, but in a way that would be just too hard and too boring to try to counter.

So I will just say, congrats, you are good and I respect you. Constantly shifting the frame of a discussion is an excellent ploy, if annoying. But by using it, one can at times win the battle but lose the war. This same technique did help me achieve divorce from a woman that I really did not want to lose, and I see that it may have helped you to get back some formerly missing pounds too!

To anyone who is more interested in being lean than in being right, and who is still looking for methods, remember that for most of us it is easier to go cold turkey on some category of pleasure or experience, than to limit it. The first is qualitative. Is this an ear of corn or an egg? OK, egg, I can eat it. Compare to -let's see, I think I have had 1800 calories so far today, I wonder if this flan is 200 calories worth of dessert, or 100?

One more comment, about the issue of being able to eat until you feel fully satisfied, which is a feature of low carb as experienced by most people.

When you go to a July 4th celebration, do you typically leave before the fireworks or afterward? When you have sex, do you stop before or after the world shifts on its axis?

If you are in the before camp, I think you may be an ideal candidate for portion control. Many others might prefer eating until their bodies say, "Ah, I'm done now!".

I just saw Katsmeow's post. Let me say that I have no idea whether low carb is better or worse than low fat, or some as yet undiscoverd technique. If a person has found a method, used it for at least several years, and stays lean and happy and comfortable, they have found their own answer. All the rest is a bit abstract.

Ha

 

[Webzter]

I just don't see that the evidence is there that for weight loss a low carb diet works any better than a low fat diet. In reality, for weight loss, I suspect that the best diet for the individual is which one the individual can stick to the best. For some people that will be low carb and for another it will be low fact. (For me, personally what works best is portion control and something that is neither low fat nor low carb).

Completely agree on the weight-loss front regarding portion control. Heck, without diet modifications at all outside of paying attention to portions (but not necessarily restricting), I'm down 5" on my waistline through a regime of schlepping 50 lb bags of concrete, 4x4 posts and 16' lengths of wood around my yard.

But, I'm wondering about other factors. For someone with other factors, it looks like a low-carb diet may (may) help. Just in glancing at the charts on the article you linked, I see there was an immediate reduction in triglyceride levels. These rebounded over time but I'm wondering if that's always true... and, selfishly, as I'm paying a higher life ins premium due to triglyceride levels, I'm now armed with a way to get those numbers down at least for the window of a retest (of course, I'd want long term changes)

I'd think portion control wrt insulin resistance would benefit no matter, especially in restricting refined carbs and sugars. I wonder if there are certain populations where low-carb would benefit significantly more though. Ha and Al's comments lead me to think they're at least seeing benefits in this area (anecdotal evidence and all that of course).

 

[haha]

But, I'm wondering about other factors. For someone with other factors, it looks like a low-carb diet may (may) help. Just in glancing at the charts on the article you linked, I see there was an immediate reduction in triglyceride levels. These rebounded over time but I'm wondering if that's always true... and, selfishly, as I'm paying a higher life ins premium due to triglyceride levels, I'm now armed with a way to get those numbers down at least for the window of a retest (of course, I'd want long term changes)

I'd think portion control wrt insulin resistance would benefit no matter, especially in restricting refined carbs and sugars. I wonder if there are certain populations where low-carb would benefit significantly more though. Ha and Al's comments lead me to think they're at least seeing benefits in this area (anecdotal evidence and all that of course).

Carb metabolism is my major issue. I have 2 parents and 3 sibs-All but one parent are/were T2 diabetics.

Re triglycerides my annual results several years running were 20 41 38 35.

I don't have tests prior to low carb eating (I didn't go to the doctor back then) so I cannot compare, but my understanding is that these are pretty good numbers for someone with my family history.

Ha

 

[Purron]

SunsetSail and Purron, I'm glad your choice is working for you. However, as the saying goes, the plural of anecdotal is not data. I'm sure I could dig up anecdotal evidence of all sorts of diets working for people, of people happy with their diet. According to the sources that Ha provided, just about any approach seemed to bring long term weight loss. Plus, I'm not sure your approach really fits what Taubes would call 'low-carb', but that might not matter.
-ERD50

I'm not trying to present data or argue this is the best approach for you or anyone else. Since I haven't studied Taubes, I can't say if my diet fits what he calls "low carb".

Just saying in my case, cutting down on carbs and sugar helped me look better and feel better. My Doctor's happy too.

 

[Katsmeow]

But, I'm wondering about other factors. For someone with other factors, it looks like a low-carb diet may (may) help. Just in glancing at the charts on the article you linked, I see there was an immediate reduction in triglyceride levels. These rebounded over time but I'm wondering if that's always true... and, selfishly, as I'm paying a higher life ins premium due to triglyceride levels, I'm now armed with a way to get those numbers down at least for the window of a retest (of course, I'd want long term changes)

I'd think portion control wrt insulin resistance would benefit no matter, especially in restricting refined carbs and sugars. I wonder if there are certain populations where low-carb would benefit significantly more though. Ha and Al's comments lead me to think they're at least seeing benefits in this area (anecdotal evidence and all that of course).

From what I've read, I do think there is evidence that low-carb may be a healthy way to eat. The thing is that so much of what you read wants to over simplify things.

To me there are a lot of variables and people like Taubes (and people on the other side of the view as well) tend to oversimplify. Some of the factors I see:

Is eating low-fat healthier? Does eating low-fat help weight loss? I don't see a lot of evidence that it is healthier in and of itself and I don't think it helps weight loss except to the extent that you reduce portions of high fat foods and therefore may reduce calories. So on this -- I think the low carb people have the better argument.

Take a diet that is high in carbohydrates, low in protein, with lots of refined sugars and highly processed foods. Lots of drinking sugary drinks, lots of candy, cakes doughnuts, chips, ice cream, cookies, etc. The evidence seems clear that this is very unhealthy. Portion control may help weight but this is just not healthy. I agree with the low carb people on this as well.

Take a diet that is high in carbohydrates but doesn't have refined sugars and highly processed foods. It is high in carbohydrates due to complex carbs and eating fruits and veggies. This type of diet can work well with weight loss. The low carb people seem to basically say this diet is also unhealthy. I don't think the evidence is really there to say that this is an unhealthy diet. This is the area where I think things are more uncertain and the low carb people go well beyond the evidence.

 

[ERD50]

ERD, you are an excellent internet argument guy, ...

Ha

I appreciate your candidness, even if the message was, well, what it was. Well, I don't expect you to believe this, but 'argument' was not even on my radar screen at any point in this thread. It's not where I was coming from at all. I am trying to understand the issue, yes I challenge what is put out there to learn, to critique, and to see what info seems to hold water. I don't see where I'm going for a 'win' of that sort. The only 'win' for me is clearer information. Regardless my intent, you clearly perceived it as argumentative. I dunno, I'm tempted to blame that disconnect on the lack of 'tone' in a post. A short story -

I've got an old friend, we often challenge each other on some thought or another, to test one or both of our views and see what holds up. Since we know each other well, this is no-holds-barred, just to save time and cut to the chase. Either of us may say something like ' C'mon, don't be stupid - A does not lead to B, you can't just ignore xyz...', and it's no problem. Yet, we had a recent email exchange, it was some insignificant side subject, and it quickly blew way out of bounds. I guess I misread his tone, joked back, he misread that, kicked it up a notch, and it was suddenly getting way heated. I had to call him and say - woah, this really isn't a big deal to me, and we're getting all excited - let's just drop it and pick it up later face-to-face if we want.

All I can say is, every word I put out there was said in a totally 'flat' tone. No 'gotcha', or snarkiness intended at any point. If I did anything to put an argumentative spin on this, I apologize, but I honestly don't know where it would have started, because it was just totally outside of the way I was thinking. I'm just trying to get some clarity on this issue. And yes, it is frustrating - the studies seem to overlap or conflict or say who knows what?

Maybe this is a mistake (won't be my first or last), but I'll try to touch on a few of your issues:

You don't get mad, you are unfailingly polite,

Thank you Well, I have nothing to get mad about. I'm looking for info. Only thing that would make me mad is someone trying to send me on a wild goose data chase when I'm trying to be serious. I know people get attached to ideas, and sometimes don't like to be challenged, so I try to be polite about the challenges. Is that being read as what I think Martha called 'Minnesota nice'?

you selectively pull up anecdotes, then studies, then chide others for thinking that anecdotes are data.

I may use anecdotes to illustrate, but not prove a point. Or I might use them to show that another's anecdote is just that. I wasn't 'chiding' SunsetSail and Purron for their anecdotes - I was merely attempting to point out that as related to this subject anecdotes are just anecdotes. We can't derive much of anything 'big picture' from them, other than they had their own personal success, which is great.

You misinterpret or misstate authors such as Taubes statements, but in a way that would be just too hard and too boring to try to counter.

I may well be (unintentionally) guilty of this. It's been a while since I read him, but the recent reports seem to match what I recall. But that could be my faulty memory. Yes, it can be a lot of work to set the record straight if I was wrong, and I sometimes don't feel like putting in the effort on a thread myself, even one I've gotten very involved in. So I can't blame you if you don't choose to pursue the corrections, but I wish you would!

...remember that for most of us it is easier to go cold turkey on some category of pleasure or experience, than to limit it. The first is qualitative. Is this an ear of corn or an egg? OK, egg, I can eat it. Compare to -let's see, I think I have had 1800 calories so far today, I wonder if this flan is 200 calories worth of dessert, or 100?

OK, I can see how that could work.

If a person has found a method, used it for at least several years, and stays lean and happy and comfortable, they have found their own answer. All the rest is a bit abstract.

I'm pretty sure I've been agreeing with that all along.

I dunno, there is just something not right for me between T-Al's pretty regular stream of super-pro-low-carb-why-isn't-everybody-doing-this-posts and what I see as a lack of backup that it is so much better than anything else. It may be a personal preference, sure. But is it clearly for everybody, over other options? That's were I get lost.

-ERD50

 

[haha]

Nice reply. Anyway, no one pays me to help people get or stay thin, so everyone is on their own.

I did have an interesting experience today. I was down at Uwajimaya, a large local Asian grocery/ meat market/ fish market/ food court etc. I saw lot of thin Asian women and men, including some well into middle age. Tonight when I was at my woman friend's house I mentioned this, and what she told me was most of her Asian women friends would not be caught dead fat, so they apply an iron will to the issue, and eat very very little. They are cute, but the cost may sometimes be discomfort. An anecdote to be dismissed, but very likely true.

Ha

 

[mountaintosea]

How everything plays out in blood analysis, I think, is genetic. My cholesterol went from 178 to 212 this past year. What was different? I ate a wonderful slice of aged cheddar cheese once a day and I reduced my carbohydrate intake to under 150 gms. a day. My fasting glucose went down from 100 last year to 94. My triglycerides increased slightly to 44. My HDL went from 64 to 74. LDL from 106 to 129. Of course I received a letter in the mail telling me to pick up some Zocor. Test my liver function in a month and return in 6 months for another test. What am I really doing? I stopped eating that wonderful cheese. In fact I knocked it out of my diet completely. Oh yes I haven't knowingly eaten meat since I was 18. But I did start eating fish some years back. AND I don't consume a lot of junk food. Genetics I'm sure.

 

[TromboneAl]

This article discusses cholesterol and low-carb. It says that the method that is used to calculate LDL doesn't work well when triglycerides are low, and talks about differences in LDL molecules.

The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D. » Low-carbohydrate diets increase LDL: debunking the myth

LDL can be measured directly, as it's done here for Gary Taubes cholesterol numbers.

Before sugar, we were talking about cholesterol | Gary Taubes | Gary Taubes

 

[mountaintosea]

Really interesting articles. So my LDL went up because of keeping my carbs under 150? Hmm I'll see what happens in 6 months. I went that route to reduce my fasting glucose. I don't think Kaiser would measure my LDL directly. I think I read this all before here when you first started your journey some years back. Thanks for posting. No weight problem here. Most of my fats are from olive oil, fish, nuts etc.

 

[haha]

Really interesting articles. So my LDL went up because of keeping my carbs under 150? Hmm I'll see what happens in 6 months. I went that route to reduce my fasting glucose. I don't think Kaiser would measure my LDL directly. I think I read this all before here when you first started your journey some years back. Thanks for posting. No weight problem here. Most of my fats are from olive oil, fish, nuts etc.

If you want to dig a little deeper into what might be going on here, read this Diabetes Update: Insight into Why A1c Correlates So Strongly with Heart Attack

This woman is very smart and very responsible.

My 1 hr post meal glucose is usally less than 100, though I am sure I had some years where it was quite a bit higher. I have been testing for 5 years or so, and have never had a post meal higher than 130. In my case, this would not be true on any diet other than low carb.

IMO, we must have a take no prisoners attitude toward blood sugar rises, no matter how short lived.

Ha

 

[mountaintosea]

Thanks haha. I read the article. Maybe I should get a test kit. Never have tested after a meal.

 

[lets-retire]

The way I've lost hundreds of pounds is the moderation diet. I found out about this diet when I was heavy into weight lifting. You can not cut out any one specific group from your diet if you like it. As T-Al said the hiker lost in the wood is going to pig out when they get back. If you really enjoy pizza, completely denying yourself will only result in a pig out. Having it once a week or every other week isn't a problem. Eat balanced meals with complex carbs, protein and fat. Just eat smaller portions and eat more frequently. I have used this and I have lost and gained a lot of weight. I have not updated my diet in many years, but I do cycle my eating with my workout. I gain fat (approximately 10-15 lbs) when I am trying to gain muscle, and I take all of it off come spring. I have spoke with many dietitians (we called them diet coaches) and the plan I use is what they recommend to their athletes. I train and eat like an athlete.

If there is a bona fide medical condition other than "the person is fat so they have an eating disorder" then a diet restricting certain food items might be the best option.