Low-Carb Eating

Grayma

Grayma

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
956
Reaction score
0
Here are some helpful books to read:

Books by Gary Taubes
Wheat Belly, by Davis
books by Mark Sisson
Nourishing Traditions, by Sally Fallon
The original book by Atkins, not the revised version
books by Michael and Mary Dan Eades
The Glycation Factor, by Dr. Gregory Ellis
Michael Pollan's books- he doesn't talk about carbs that much, but he does a great job of totally debunking the lipid hypothesis, the ideas that fat is bad for you and that margarine is healthier than butter are just bad information based on bad science that the government propagated.


These are useful blogs:

Fat Head - Blog site for the comedy-documentary Fat Head

http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/= look mainly at his older posts as lately he's relied more and more on a radio format and I don't know if he adds captioning.

Mark's Daily Apple: Mark's Daily Apple


Dr. Kendrick's site: How To: Know the Truth About Carbohydrates
 
Why Calorie counts alone are not the answer.

At least for some of us. Consider this study:

Food Crazy : Experience Life Magazine

The study was divided into three parts: For the first three months, the men ate three hearty meals per day, totaling roughly 3,200 calories. During the second part of the study, lasting six months, food was rationed to two calorie-restrictive meals per day; study participants were then monitored for three months for effects. Only three months into the six-month starvation-phase of the meal plan, the participants just about went crazy.

How crazy? Two ended up being hospitalized in psych wards. In order to get out of the study, one cut off his fingers with an ax while on a supervised visit to a friend’s house. Two others chewed so much gum (as many as 40 packs a day each) that their mouths bled. One started compulsively digging food out of garbage cans and lying about it. Another began hoarding photos of food from magazines.

Keys gave his starving subjects psychological tests throughout the experiment and found, within only a few weeks on the starvation plan, that the healthy young men had become neurotic and psychotic. They’d lost their ambition, self-discipline and mental alertness, along with their ability to focus and comprehend. Their energy levels had been drained.

Now, here’s the scariest part of all: This “starvation” diet, the one that sparked psychosis and mutilation among these starving study participants, allowed an average of 1,570 calories.

That’s right, a little more than 1,500 calories. Anyone who has followed any sort of popular, mainstream diet in the last few decades knows that 1,500 calories is often prescribed as an average calorie limit. Several registered dietitians are still suggesting even less, a 1,200-calorie-a-day diet.
Click to expand...

When they started returning to regular calory levels, they gained fat back first. There's more at the link, and it's really interesting.

Sugar calories, calories from foods high on the glycemic index scale, convert to fat, and they spike your blood sugars and make you hungry.

When you remove fat from your diet, your body thinks you are starving, and conserves fat.

When you eat low-carb foods, you are choosing foods that are low in the glycemic index, they do not spike your blood sugars and you feel full. Your body does not think you are starving, and it doesn't conserve the fat.

Glycemic Index List of Foods, Foods That Lower Blood Sugar

The Glycemic Index

There are many different low-carb eating plans. Atkins is the one I'm doing. It has different stages. In the first stage it is extremely strict, because the goal is not just weight loss, but a change in habits and tastes.

This first stage is also about eliminating unhealthy processed foods and food cravings.

There's more about that here:
Atkins Diet Phases | LIVESTRONG.COM

Like I've said, I don't think it's for everybody, but I do think everybody who is trying to lose weight or control pre-diabetes issues can benefit from learning about the glycemic index and choosing foods that are from the lower end of the spectrum.

The myth that calories are the only thing that matters is just that- a myth. A dangerous error for some of us, as Dr. Keys discovered.
 
there is a thread-http://www.alldeaf.com/lifestyle-health-fitness-food/92713-paleo-primal-lifestyle.html

I disagree with Gary Taubes' view- carbs being "bad calories". I did primal experiment a few months ago, and had learned that grains except masa and rice make me sleepy. If I eat legumes at a restaurant, I usually go for 1/4 cup of legumes. I cannot consume more than 1/4 cup or otherwise, my gut will bloat. I don't eat peanut butter. Hate it. Also, Inflammation in my muscles had disappeared completely. I rarely eat snack. I usually eat 2-3 meals a day. My energy level have gone up. Way up. My taste buds have changed.. It definitely feels a lot cleaner. I was able to lose more than 4 inches of fat, but did not lose a pound. I run barefoot (I wear water shoes), plank exercises, and yoga. I'm almost never starved.

I knew about Dr. Keys being a fraud. I don't like it when a low-carb doctor/ blogger compared Dr. Keyes to Jack LaLanne, because of their ages- Jack pushes up in his 90s and Dr. Keyes sits in a wheelchair with his cane at a 100 years old due to a stroke. Dr. Keys was very active until stroke hit him. There is a video of Jack LaLanne long time ago preaching food habits- no soda, no canned fruit, no sugar, no jams, no jellies, no pies, no cookies, no ice creams, no candy, and no pastries. He did say that flour and sugar are junk. I am not surprised the paleo community believe that Jack LaLanne made a mistake of advocating for juicing- plenty of carbs without fiber to slow down the rush. They were speculating that Jack cut down protein due to Dr. Keys' influences, which lead to his death.
 
Dr. Keys is the guy who came up with the Mediterranean diet, I think.

There are a lot of similarities between paleo and low-carb, but some differences, too.
 
Grayma - couldn't help noticing your comment about calories being just a myth. Out of curiosity, would you say that the diet you're on now is lower in calories than before you started dieting?

I know if you are on Atkin's diet and have cut out all simple carbs from your diet, GUARANTEED you are now consuming less calories so it would be rather difficult to say number of calories has nothing to do with it when in fact, you ARE consuming less calories.

One thing for sure, the more whole your foods are, the better for you. the more simplified and processed your carbs are, the worse they are for you. No argument there.
 
Caroline, the point is that it's not *only* calories that matter. Some calories raise your blood sugars more and make you hungry, very hungry, a lot sooner. This is true even with whole foods- for instance, broccoli vs potatoes or rice, or brown rice vs wild rice, or black soy beans vs split peas. Wild rice spikes the blood sugar far less than brown rice, even though both are better than white rice.
People who struggle with weight, especially women, are not helped by the gross oversimplification that it's only calories that matter.

And some people, esp those with a higher risk of diabetes need to be especially careful with this- if you read the Mendosa pages I linked he talks about the connection between those foods high on the glycemic index and increased insulin levels- which, among other things, increases fat.

Insulin increases body fat despite control of food intake and physical activity

This is also interesting:

Daily replacement therapy with 50 mg of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) significantly decreases visceral and subcutaneous abdominal fat and significantly increases insulin sensitivity in the elderly, according to the results of a six-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled preliminary trial published in the Nov. 10 issue of JAMA. "The accumulation of abdominal fat increases with advancing age, and there is extensive evidence that abdominal obesity increases the risk for development of insulin resistance, diabetes, and atherosclerosis," write Dennis T. Villareal, MD, and John O. Holloszy, MD, from the Division of Geriatrics and Nutritional Science at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri.
According to the authors, the increase in abdominal fat may be due in part to age-related hormonal and metabolic changes. "One such change is the decline in production of the adrenal hormone [DHEA],...[which] peaks at approximately 20 years of age and declines rapidly and markedly after age 25 years," the authors write.
Click to expand...

I eat when I'm hungry. But when I eliminated grains, sugars, soft cheeses, and most fruits, I'm hungry far less often and my joints are less inflamed. I'll add fruits back in next, starting with rhubarb and berries, which are lowest on the glycemic index.
 
Grayma said:
Caroline, the point is that it's not *only* calories that matter. Some calories raise your blood sugars more and make you hungry, very hungry, a lot sooner. This is true even with whole foods- for instance, broccoli vs potatoes or rice, or brown rice vs wild rice, or black soy beans vs split peas. Wild rice spikes the blood sugar far less than brown rice, even though both are better than white rice.
People who struggle with weight, especially women, are not helped by the gross oversimplification that it's only calories that matter.

And some people, esp those with a higher risk of diabetes need to be especially careful with this- if you read the Mendosa pages I linked he talks about the connection between those foods high on the glycemic index and increased insulin levels- which, among other things, increases fat.

Insulin increases body fat despite control of food intake and physical activity

This is also interesting:



I eat when I'm hungry. But when I eliminated grains, sugars, soft cheeses, and most fruits, I'm hungry far less often and my joints are less inflamed. I'll add fruits back in next, starting with rhubarb and berries, which are lowest on the glycemic index.
Click to expand...

ok. I do concede quality of calories matter very much.

As for the theories on insulin/glycemic index, well, there are a lot of different professional opinions.


In the end, everyone needs to choose what they feel work for them, just hoping that you won't feel the effects of self-deprivation of so many foods, that leads to bingeing and makes it very difficult to stay on such a restrictive diet for a lifetime.

i wish you luck.
 
If you're into exercise, it's not good idea to have low-carb diet.
 
DeafCaroline said:
In the end, everyone needs to choose what they feel work for them, just hoping that you won't feel the effects of self-deprivation of so many foods, that leads to bingeing and makes it very difficult to stay on such a restrictive diet for a lifetime.

i wish you luck.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

The thing about the extremely restrictive version that I'm doing is that it's not just for weight loss- the idea behind the sudden elimination of everything sweet or high on the glycemic index is that it also helps overcome cravings for unhealthy foods and makes most sweet things taste obnoxiously sweet. It's not supposed to be for a lifetime. Atkins himself only recommended this stage for two weeks before starting to add things back in gradually.

I'm taking a lot longer, watching my blood sugars to see how I do with each new food, not just for weight, but because the no grains seems to make a huge difference to me in joint inflammation.

That part of what I'm doing is controversial, and it's probably totally unnecessary for most people. But I need something this severe at this point in my life.
 
Boult, I like your page, but I thought low-carb, what I am doing, was very different from Paleo. I am curious, would you say they are similar?
 
Grayma said:
Boult, I like your page, but I thought low-carb, what I am doing, was very different from Paleo. I am curious, would you say they are similar?
Click to expand...

pretty much similar but not entirely… just read first few links in http://is.gd/paleo

Although Paleo is not really a "Low carb diet" although there are followers of Paleo diet which is called "Low Carb Paleo diet"

See this link for Carb Curve graph:
http://www.alldeaf.com/lifestyle-health-fitness-food/92713-paleo-primal-lifestyle-2.html#post1906489
 
Isn't it more accurate to define "calorie" as just a unit of measurement? The breakdown of say "celery vs salmon vs milk"?

History does tell us that humans have eaten from a "varied food supply" since the beginning of time. The local supermarket wasn't around for a great deal of time-past.

I understand that "carbs" are generally used by one's body for energy.
Have fun understanding the "metabolic syndrome".

The other variable is what level of exercise is actually done to use what is eaten.
 
Those including me who do Paleo don't count calories… and we don't subscribe to calorie in, calorie out theory… it's rubbish! it is a merry go around crap theory.. one can eat a thousand calories and lose weight provided that food one eat is REAL WHOLE FOOD (MEAT, VEGETABLES, FRUITS AND NUTS) no processed foods or drinks (grain based foods IS processed foods)

Debunking Calories In vs Calories Out for Weight Loss | Eat. Sleep. Move
 
Back
Top