Stupid diet tricks

[RonBoyd]

But, if you are one of those people [RonBoyd Note: and I am not] and, at the same time, are one of the people who can maintain a healthy weight without constant hunger on a LCHF diet I would ask so what?

Describes exactly the reasoning behind my lack of motivation to pursue this.

 

[JoeWras]

This is my favorite way to get extra Fat without extra Protein:

I defy you to tell, by taste, that it is not the standard high-sugar dessert you remember as a child. I made it for two servings but that may be a bit much for most so I could easily be three servings.

Now that's a cool looking recipe. I'm going to try that out. Thanks for the idea.

 

[eytonxav]

I have been reading as much as I can and have concluded that LCHF diets may raise LDL in some people. But, if you are one of those people and, at the same time, are one of the people who can maintain a healthy weight without constant hunger on a LCHF diet I would ask so what? The health advantages of healthy weight versus overweight or obesity are dramatic. The health advantages of low LDL are comparatively small (certainly in people who do not already have CHD). I, for one, wouldn't worry much at all about the LDL. For those who believe the high LDL to be a fearful condition, eat LCHF and take statins. Unless you have kidney breakdown the side effects of the statins are going to be much less than the side effects of obesity.

On the other hand, if you can achieve and maintain similar weight loss on something like an Ornish or Mediterranean diet, and do so without constant hunger, go for it and see how your cholesterol works out. It seems to me that weight management is the higher goal and people should look for practical solutions, not unachievable theoretical ideals.

Don,

I am one of those unfortunates who ended up with the triple wammy (my fault for not taking action earlier). High blood pressure, previous problems with cholesterol and tryglicerides (before statin), and T2. For me, I suspect the best diet formula would be a LCHPMF approach, at least if I pay any credance to convenational medical advice on keeping blood lipids at the low end due to my condition.

Still my biggest problem tends to be after dinner cravings and snacking. I'm not where I want to be with a nutrition plan as I'm still consuming way too many carbs and not enough protein, but feel my fat consumption is about right. I hope to be better able to get this right once I retire and have more time to prepare meals myself.

 

[donheff]

Don,

I am one of those unfortunates who ended up with the triple wammy (my fault for not taking action earlier). High blood pressure, previous problems with cholesterol and tryglicerides (before statin), and T2. For me, I suspect the best diet formula would be a LCHPMF approach, at least if I pay any credance to convenational medical advice on keeping blood lipids at the low end due to my condition.

Still my biggest problem tends to be after dinner cravings and snacking. I'm not where I want to be with a nutrition plan as I'm still consuming way too many carbs and not enough protein, but feel my fat consumption is about right. I hope to be better able to get this right once I retire and have more time to prepare meals myself.

It is easy enough to experiment on yourself. Try a LCHF diet for a month or two and get your blood tested. Try a LCHPMF diet for another month or two and get your blood tested. Observe how easy it is to maintain the diets. Make decisions accordingly.

 

[Chuckanut]

It seems to me that weight management is the higher goal and people should look for practical solutions, not unachievable theoretical ideals.

Don, obviously, you are another dangerous radical here on the FIRE forums. A real provocateur! You think. You are dangerous!

 

[RonBoyd]

Now that's a cool looking recipe. I'm going to try that out. Thanks for the idea.

Chocolate is one of three food items that I consider "essential" and that should be taken regularly -- daily, if possible. (BTW, the other two are Tumerick and Cumin -- which I do take daily, normally with eggs at breakfast. And, yeah, the jury is still out on Fish Oil supplements.) This is the most commonly available product for me - either natural or dark. Pure chocolate, however, is extremely bitter and has to be tempered in some way -- the normal way is to mix it with huge amounts of sugar, which counters any beneficial aspects. (The Hot Cocoa drink I mentioned earlier is another sugar-free method -- the evening Snack.)

BTW, yesterday, I received a copy of The Joy of Gluten-Free, Sugar-Free Baking: 80 Low-Carb Recipes that Offer Solutions for Celiac Disease, Diabetes, and Weight Loss: Peter Reinhart, Denene Wallace: 9781607741169: Amazon.com: Books. (Who could resist that Cover Photo?) Up until two years ago, I baked a loaf of bread every morning -- it took me a long time to give up bread on this HFLC thing. The co-author Peter Reinhart's previous book, The Bread Bakers Apprentice, is well-worn at our house. Anyway, Gluten-Free and Sugar-Free... what more could you ask for? Perhaps I will be able to find time to write up a review sometime. (We will, probably, be leaving on another 2-3 week RV trip in the next week or so.)

 

[haha]

It is easy enough to experiment on yourself. Try a LCHF diet for a month or two and get your blood tested.

This is also the way I see it. Each of us has a body, some ideas about what to try, and access with or without an MDs cooperation to clinical laboratories. Since all these metabolic patterns are a result of a genetic makeup interacting with a lifestyle, it would be strange indeed if everyone reacted the same way to everything.

Certainly high LDL is not 'fearsome", as someone mentioned. Is it clinically meaningful? A different and IMO more rational question. There are meaningful well designed papers out there.

Ha

 

[RonBoyd]

Each of us has a body, some ideas about what to try, and access with or without an MDs cooperation to clinical laboratories.

There are only three books that I recommend (as relates to this thread); Why we Get Fat, The Art & Science of Low Carbohydrate Living*, and this one:


http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Die-Early-Life-Save/dp/0985404507/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351794197&sr=8-1&keywords=don%27t+die+early#_


Dr. Lawrence is a great believer in people doing this investigation on their own with consultation from a MD instead of the other way around. A third of his book is devoted to showing one exactly how to do that. He, for instance, points you to Lab(s) that will perform all of the tests that your doctor would prescribe... even if he/she doesn't.



*If you are very active, I suppose this book should also come in handy: The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance: Jeff S. Volek, Stephen D. Phinney: 9780983490715: Amazon.com: Books

 

[RAE]

Going back to the original topic... I think eating meat and vegetables instead of processed foods makes perfect sense, but what would someone like myself do? Even at 31 I still eat like a 5 year old. I dislike most vegetables. All I ever really eat in the form of vegetables are canned green beans, sweet peas, and corn. I've tried forcing myself to choke down tomatoes, cucumbers, broccoli, etc. but with no luck. I'm very much a meat and potatoes guy.

There is nothing wrong with eating meat and potatoes. I eat plenty of both, although I do eat lots of all types of vegetables, too. If you like fish, eggs and cheese, those are all fine to eat too. The main things you want to avoid are: 1)processed grains (anything made from flour, especially wheat flour; 2) industrial seed oils (soybean oil, corn oil, etc.); and 3) anything with added fructose (such as soda) or added sugar (and no artificial sweeteners either). If you can avoid all that stuff, and add even a few colorful vegetables to your meat/potatoes, you'll be doing pretty good. Eating too many things from the above 3 categories is what is leading to most of our chronic health problems, in my opinion.

 

[RAE]

Ok so you are me today... You were running late this morning and didn't bring your lunch to work, so you are forced to grab something from a fast food place nearby... What are you ordering?

I avoid fast food whenever possible, but if I had to buy something at a fast food place, I'd probably get a couple of cheeseburgers and remove (don't eat) the buns. Maybe a salad to go with it, if they offered one. Or, you could get something like a burrito and just not east most of the tortilla wrap. The stuff you want to avoid (other than the buns/tortillas, which are just highly processed white flour) are french fries (cooked in industrial seed oil), any of the sugary desserts, and also soda (both regular and diet are bad). I'd get either water, coffee, or unsweetened tea to drink.

I know, it doesn't sound like a great lunch. It's really a lot better to cook a big batch of something nutritious at home (on the weekend, or whatever), and then just take the leftovers to work with you for lunch, and microwave them. Doesn't have to be anything too elaborate........chili is always good, any kind of meat/veggie combo, etc..

 

[smr91481]

What's the problem with diet soda? What makes artificial sweeteners bad for you?

 

[RonBoyd]

What's the problem with diet soda? What makes artificial sweeteners bad for you?

+1

 

[donheff]

What's the problem with diet soda? What makes artificial sweeteners bad for you?

+1

+1 I have read a lot of condemnations but haven't seen details about why artificial sweeteners or carbonation itself is so bad. A lot of people assert that they will facilitate a continuing sweet tooth but so what if you don't tunr to sugar?

 

[RonBoyd]

For those struggling with what "diet" is right for them is this Podcast:

ATLCX (Episode 33): Dr. Peter Attia | Finding The Diet That

... one of the basic philosophies that I think is an important part of living a healthy lifestyle. Here it is:

“Find a diet plan that is right for you, follow that plan exactly as prescribed by the author and then keep doing that plan for the rest of your life making appropriate tweaks along the way to keep it working.”

But how do you go about figuring out what the “right” diet and lifestyle plan is for you? That’s what we explored further in this episode of “Ask The Low-Carb Experts” with a highly-qualified guest expert named Dr. Peter Attia from the “Eating Academy” blog (listen to my March 2012 interview with Peter in Episode 560 of “The Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb Show” podcast). Listen in to hear Dr. Peter Attia take on the topic “Finding The Diet That’s Right For You” in EPISODE 33 that aired LIVE on November 1, 2012.

Yeah, its an hour and a half long but you can download it and listen to it at your leizure.

 

[RonBoyd]

Here is the list referred to in the above Podcast:

List Of Low-Carb Doctors

The doctors are listed by State.

 

[RAE]

What's the problem with diet soda? What makes artificial sweeteners bad for you?

Well, I suggest you do your own research, but the reading I've done on artificial sweeteners suggests that:

1) they may actually promote weight gain (and all of the health problems that go along with it), rather than help you lose weight;
2) some of them can cause cancer;
3) they train your body to crave unnaturally sweet-tasting foods, rather than learning how to enjoy foods in their natural state;
4) they are just another food additive that I don't want to put into my body, as I am trying to eat mainly "real foods", rather than highly processed artificial foods.

For me, it comes down to the fact that consuming artificial sweeteners is not worth the risk. I now enjoy eating real food without that stuff added in, so why use them at all?

Here are a few links that go into some detail on a few of the things I've mentioned above. If you look around, you can find many more similar articles.
New Study Suggests Artificial Sweetener Causes Cancer In Rats At Levels Currently Approved For Humans



On the Question of Sweeteners | Mark's Daily Apple



http://drhyman.com/blog/conditions/artificial-sweeteners-could-be-sabotaging-your-diet/

 

[RonBoyd]

Well, I suggest you do your own research, but the reading I've done on artificial sweeteners suggests that:
...
Here are a few links that go into some detail on a few of the things I've mentioned above.

I have to agree somewhat (I really haven't hought about it) in the case of Aspertame and Saccharine -- I have always avoided them (even to the point of obsession).

I have a different opinion of Sucralose (Splenda); which pretty much goes along these lines:

[from your Link] Most researchers, practitioners and other experts suggest that they haven’t seen the same kinds of problems with sucralose that they have with previous artificial sweeteners. It’s true that sucralose is relatively new on the scene, and many are watching for signs of problems past. Nonetheless, in the interest of equal time, we’ll mention a brief caution that is based on a collection of personal accounts rather than scientific evidence. It appears that a small number of people do have experiences resembling allergic reactions to the sweetener. Although we couldn’t find reliable human studies that measured or confirmed these symptoms’ relation to sucralose, there are probably enough stories out there to suggest that people play it safe and “test” their reaction to the sweetener with small doses initially. Also, as we said earlier, if the food or drink isn’t something that offers a real benefit to your body, you’re probably better off finding an alternative.

Personally, Splenda is the only sweetner that is acceptable to my taste buds -- it matches exactly the taste (sweetness, not flavor) of Cane Sugar/Honey/Maple Syrup. I have tried all of the different types.

Besides what other alternative? Sugar/Honey/Maple Syrup? (I am not asking about the highly processed versions like HFCS or Agave.) So the choice is a suspicion that "artificial" might cause a problem in high doses or spikes in blood sugar, even in small doses, which definitely is dangerous?

(In the interest of full disclosure, I do use -- and approve -- Maple Sugar as the only "real" sweetner, albeit, rarely.)

 

[RAE]

You might be right that Sucralose (Splenda) will turn out to have no long-term negative health impacts for most people. However, the jury is definitely still out on that. For me, I see no reason to put any artificial sweeteners (or other artificial compounds that are not recognized as food by our bodies) into my system, if I can avoid them. Here is another excerpt from an article on Sucralose at this link:
Sugar substitutes and the potential danger of Splenda



"Once it gets to the gut, sucralose goes largely unrecognized in the body as food — that’s why it has no calories. The majority of people don’t absorb a significant amount of Splenda in their small intestine — about 15% by some accounts. The irony is that your body tries to clear unrecognizable substances by digesting them, so it’s not unlikely that the healthier your gastrointestinal system is, the more you’ll absorb the chlorinated molecules of Splenda.
So, is Splenda safe? The truth is we just don’t know yet. There are no long-term studies of the side effects of Splenda in humans. The manufacturer’s own short-term studies showed that very high doses of sucralose (far beyond what would be expected in an ordinary diet) caused shrunken thymus glands, enlarged livers, and kidney disorders in rodents. (A more recent study also shows that Splenda significantly decreases beneficial gut flora.) But in this case, the FDA decided that because these studies weren’t based on human test animals, they were not conclusive. Of course, rats had been chosen for the testing specifically because they metabolize sucralose more like humans than any other animal used for testing. In other words, the FDA has tried to have it both ways — they accepted the manufacturer’s studies on rats because the manufacturer had shown that rats and humans metabolize the sweetener in similar ways, but shrugged off the safety concerns on the grounds that rats and humans are different. In our view, determining that something is safe (or not) in laboratory rats isn’t a definitive answer, as we’ve seen countless examples of foods and drugs that have proved dangerous to humans that were first found to be safe in laboratory rats, both in short- and long-term studies.
Here are two other reasons for our concern: first, in the eleven years after Splenda was put on the market, no independent studies of sucralose lasting more than six months have been done in humans. Second, none of the trials that were done was very large — the largest was 128 people studied for three months, making us wonder, what happens when you’ve used sucralose for a year, or two, or ten? Then there’s the fact that Splenda, as a product, consists of more than just sucralose—it’s made with dextrose, and sometimes also with maltodextrin, neither of which were included in the original studies and trials of sucralose. So the reality is that we are the guinea pigs for Splenda.
Splenda side effects

Evidence that there are side effects of Splenda is accumulating little by little. Sucralose has been implicated as a possible migraine trigger, for example. Self-reported adverse reactions to Splenda or sucralose collected by the Sucralose Toxicity Information Center include skin rashes/flushing, panic-like agitation, dizziness and numbness, diarrhea, swelling, muscle aches, headaches, intestinal cramping, bladder issues, and stomach pain. These show up at one end of the spectrum — in the people who have an allergy or sensitivity to the sucralose molecule. But no one can say to what degree consuming Splenda affects the rest of us, and there are no long-term studies in humans with large numbers of subjects to say one way or the other if it’s safe for everyone.
If this sounds familiar, it should: we went down the same path with aspartame, the main ingredient in Equal and NutraSweet. Almost all of the independent research into aspartame found dangerous side effects in rodents. The FDA chose not to take these findings into account when it approved aspartame for public use. Over the course of 15 years, those same side effects increasingly appeared in humans. Not in everyone, of course — but in those who were vulnerable to the chemical structure of aspartame.
As food additives, artificial sweeteners are not subject to the same gauntlet of FDA safety trials as pharmaceuticals. Most of the testing is funded by the food industry, which has a vested interest in the outcome. This can lead to misleading claims on both sides.
But one thing is certain: some of the chemicals that comprise artificial sweeteners are known hazards — the degree to which you experience side effects just depends on your individual biochemistry. Manufacturers are banking on the fact that our bodies won’t absorb very much of these compounds at any one time. And many of us don’t. But what happens when we are ingesting a combination of artificial sweeteners like Splenda dozens of times a week through many different “low–sugar” or “sugar–free” products?
People have been using artificial sweeteners for decades. Some react poorly, some don’t — the problem is, you never know until you’re already sick. Scientists are calling Splenda a mild mutagen, based on how much is absorbed. Right now, it’s anyone’s guess what portion of the population is being exposed to the dangers of Splenda or already suffering from Splenda side effects. Until an independent, unbiased research group conducts long-term studies on humans (six months is hardly long-term!), how can we be certain? With all the new Splenda products on our shelves, it looks as if we are now in the process of another grand public experiment — without our permission. And we may not know the health implications for decades. As with all things, time will unveil truth.
So I urge you to be concerned about the potential dangers of Splenda — as with any unnatural substance you put in your body. And I am especially concerned about its use for children, which I recommend you avoid."

 

[RonBoyd]

... compounds that are not recognized as food by our bodies)

That also describes Fiber and there are a lot of folks on that Bandwagon... probably including you.

 

[braumeister]

People have been using artificial sweeteners for decades. Some react poorly, some don’t — the problem is, you never know until you’re already sick.

Ay, there's the rub.
At the risk of practicing anecdotal medicine, I would mention that my grandfather happily used saccharin for the last 40 years of his 96-year life.

 

[RAE]

That also describes Fiber and there are a lot of folks on that Bandwagon... probably including you.

As I said, my main emphasis is to try to eat only real foods. If there is naturally-occurring fiber in some of those things (like many vegetables), great........but I don't make any special effort to include extra fiber in my diet.

Although neither may be digested by the body, I think there is a significant difference between naturally-occurring fiber in foods, versus man-made food additives that are made by altering the chemical structure of a compound. Fiber in foods (which is mostly the cell walls of plant cells) is recognized by the body for what it is, and passed through. It is not fully known yet what the body does with altered compounds that it does not recognize, and that's why I don't want to consume them.

You asked earlier about alternatives to sugar. Since I started eating the way I do now, I really don't crave sweet foods, so I don't see a need to use sweeteners of any kind. Very rarely (like maybe a few times per year) I will use a little bit of real maple syrup or honey on something, and I do eat some dark chocolate (which has a minor amount of sugar), but that's about it.

 

[RonBoyd]

the problem is, you never know until you’re already sick.

That also describes Type 2 Diabetes (unless one heeds the warning signs found through blood work.)

Evidence that there are side effects of Splenda is accumulating little by little. Sucralose has been implicated as a possible migraine trigger, for example. Self-reported adverse reactions to Splenda or sucralose collected by the Sucralose Toxicity Information Center include skin rashes/flushing, panic-like agitation, dizziness and numbness, diarrhea, swelling, muscle aches, headaches, intestinal cramping, bladder issues, and stomach pain.

I have always thought of these "sicknesses" as temporary conditions, or at least, treatable. Type 2 Diabetes is incurable -- in can be held somewhat under control, however.

The manufacturer’s own short-term studies showed that very high doses of sucralose (far beyond what would be expected in an ordinary diet) caused shrunken thymus glands, enlarged livers, and kidney disorders in rodents. (A more recent study also shows that Splenda significantly decreases beneficial gut flora.) But in this case, the FDA decided that because these studies weren’t based on human test animals, they were not conclusive.

And that's the Science behind claiming that modest amounts of Sucralose is harmful? Well, there, also, are well-documented cases of ingesting massive amounts of water (H2O) causing death.

Yes, the Boogy Man probably lives under my bed but I don't lie awake worrying about it.

 

[HFWR]

Another data point...

Max Condition Training and Fitness: Low Carb Dogma

 

[HFWR]

An interesting study...

Physical inactivity as the culprit of metabolic inflexibility: evidence from bed-rest studies

Our aim is to provide evidence that supports the hypothesis that physical inactivity per se is one of the primary causes in the development of metabolic inflexibility. This evidence will focus on four main tenants of metabolic inflexiblity: 1) insulin resistance, 2) impaired lipid trafficking and hyperlipidemia, 3) a shift in substrate use toward glucose, and 4) a shift in muscle fiber type and ectopic fat storage. Altogether, this hypothesis places sedentary behaviors upstream on the list of factors involved in metabolic inflexibility, which is considered to be a primary impairment in several metabolic disorders such as obesity, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

 

[obgyn65]

This depends on what your definition of "safe" is. This topic is controversial.

What's the problem with diet soda? What makes artificial sweeteners bad for you?