|
[ Supplements Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
..of medicine. Showing that carbohydrates DO cause weight gain. For those that do not support high-protein/fat diets, please read Dr. Mercola's comments as he admits that at least 1/3 of people should NEVER be on high-protein/fat diets. The reason is due to metabolic typing. Maybe some of you will be more willing to give him a chance now?
http://www.mercola.com/2003/jun/4/atkins_diet.htm
In Reply to: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Helping You on June 04, 2003 at 14:00:47:
HY, I do not know anyone who after getting off the Atkins diet didn't gain the weight back..But I am sure their someone out there..That's the problem with all diets..When you go off them, back comes the weight..To lose weight and keep it off you have to change your eating habits for life..I am the correct weight for a man 6ft 4in..Problem is I am only 5ft 10in..And at 61 my first concern is whats going on on the inside, not the outside..I did the Atkins diet, lost weight but felt crummy..I have read Dr. Mercola No Grain diet but this " old dude" feels like a million on fruits, veggies and very small amounts of meats..Except for the grey hair ( all sill there ) I look and feel 20..I have been asked where I get my tan ( I live in New England )..Most don't beleive me when I tell them to eat live fresh foods, vitamins and excercise..Bring on those veggies..Steve
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Steve on June 04, 2003 at 14:55:00:
Anything - ANYTHING with calories will cause one to gain weight. I am not saying that for SOME carbs are bad - or some Overeat... but lets face it - overeating ANYTHING is not good and will cause one to gain!
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Steve on June 04, 2003 at 14:55:00:
If you had been following Atkin's recommendations, you would know that you can't get off a diet, his included. It is all about life style change. You find the level of carbs that keeps your weight stable, and don't go above it.
The idea of going off a diet is ludicrous. That implies going back to the bad ways that got you fat to begin with. He himself says, don't go off a diet, go to a different one if you must. To keep from regaining weight you must change your eating habits for life.
In Reply to: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Helping You on June 04, 2003 at 14:00:47:
Hi HY:
You mention "metabolic typing". How can I find out what metabolic type I am? Thanks.
In Reply to: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Helping You on June 04, 2003 at 14:00:47:
This is my last post before holiday, I promise. HY you just demonstrate the dangers of using others like Mercola to interpret data. "Atkins Diet Research Proves Grains Cause Weight Gain" is a ridiculous title and does not reflect the results shown nor the opinions of the researchers. How could they show grains cause weight gain when (1) there is no mention of grain content in the diet and, more importantly (2), people lost weight on the low fat/high carbohydrate diet! As I have been saying many times, please read the results and interpret the data yourself.
In Reply to: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Helping You on June 04, 2003 at 14:00:47:
Heh heh there you go again...
If this claim were true, then all the people in the Asian countries would be overweight/obese, since it is a fact that their diet is mainly grain-based carbos...but the truth is, these Asians are mostly fit and not fat.
So much for Mercola/Atkins/and-who-else fad diet theory...
In Reply to: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Helping You on June 04, 2003 at 14:00:47:
this is consistent with hundreds of other references you have posted and i see no reason for anyone to be upset about it. but we all know they WILL be! LOL
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by bing on June 04, 2003 at 22:45:00:
Bing
when I cut out carbs, and grains, I shed 12 kilos and have not put it back on since sticking to the diet plan.
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Michele on June 04, 2003 at 17:30:23:
No, shit, Sherlock!
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by cris on June 04, 2003 at 17:40:43:
It always amuses me when I hear people complain about gaining weight again when going back to the old habits.
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by cris on June 04, 2003 at 17:40:43:
Cris, You miss my point..The reason I went off the Atkins diet is I felt lousy on it..I could not agree more with you about changing eating habits..I'am sure this diet works for some, but I do much better on fruits, veggies and grains..I am not a DR. but I can tell the foods that don't agree with me and I stay away from them..We spend to much time on how we look ( too heavey too thin ) I haven't gotten on a scale in over a year..How your BP, liver, colon..Besides I am too good looking already lol..Steve
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Miss Bliss on June 05, 2003 at 03:05:31:
Well, Bliss, I eat grains all the time and I'm not fat. So there ;)
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Steve on June 04, 2003 at 14:55:00:
Steve, sorry, didn't mean to lecture. I was merely responding to your statement about gaining weight after going off diets. I am a firm believer in people doing what works for them. I am not pushing any food philosophy. Have at it!
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by PhillyLady on June 04, 2003 at 21:27:57:
Buy the book the Metabolic Type diet. It is excellent and I am sure it will take you a major step forward in achieving optimal health.
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by GG on June 05, 2003 at 12:08:17:
I was reading the summary at amazon.com for this book and found this sentence.
Wolcott believes that tailoring your diet to your body's particular quirks--metabolic typing--will improve digestion, circulation, immunity, energy, and mood.
My first concern was that healthy bodies do have variations in function, but some "quirks" are meant to be fixed, not catered to through diet. For example, if I am not producing enough stomach acid, the goal should be to encourage my body to produce more stomach acid, not eat foods that are easily digestible for persons with low stomach acid. In your opinion does the book and process of metabolic typing address this issue?
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by bing on June 04, 2003 at 22:45:00:
Thanks for your "Asian" perspective. However, not all Asian diets meet those criteria. Many Asian cultures eat an abundance of fats in the form of pork and beef, as well as fermented foods like natto that provide probiotics, vitamin K, and lactic acid. Grains are simply a part of the diet. And as Mercola said, at least 1/3 of all people on the planet will not do well with that type of diet. Most of those people may be Asian in origin. This still doesn't speak for the rest of the world.
-HY
In Reply to: Hey when I posted those studies you poo-pooed them posted by Eliza on June 04, 2003 at 22:00:01:
The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine, not Alternative Medicine Digest lol. You'll never see past the dietary choices you have deemed as "healthy" no matter what anybody says. The biggest argument against the protein/fat campaign is that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease. In fact, this is not proven because the tool that is mainly used to assess this, is cholesterol levels. Since 65% of all people who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels, this whole theory is seriously tainted.
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by thessa on June 05, 2003 at 12:48:51:
With all due respect, I wouldn't necessarily trust a review posted at Amazon.com. Anybody can write these reviews. There is no way to know if the review was written by anybody with knowledge of the system.
Metabolic Typing allows the person to discover which foods, and in which amounts, will optimize the person's biochemistry. At that point, the body fixes itself. If you continuously put the wrong fuel into your car, eventually it breaks down. Putting the correct fuel in allows your car to run smoothly. This is similar to metabolic typing. There are 9 homeostatic control mechanisms in the body. here are a few that are measured through metabolic typing: Sympathethic/Parasympathetic, Catabolic/Anabolic, Oxidative system (Fast/Slow), Electrolyte balance is also measured, body type, temperature readings, glucose tolerance, and a lengthy questionaire is also used. The goal is to balance all of these systems. When this is done, the body can heal itself. The idea that this diet is used to compensate for poor body functions like low stomach acid is false. The body corrects its own stomach acid production through regulation of the homeostatic systems. I would suggest reading the book rather than making assumptions based on one reviewer who you don't know anything about. I hope that helps
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Steve on June 04, 2003 at 14:55:00:
Thanks for your personal testimony. However, the purpose of this scientific study is simply to show that excess carbs in the diet DO cause weight gain. It's beyond the scope of the study to include info on lifestyle changes. That, of course, is important but relevant to the information provided.
I am glad that you feel better on very little meat. Experience of many vegans and vegetarians often report the same experience when begining the diet, and up to a few years into the diet. However, many report that after a few years with little to no meat (or at least some sort of animal food with the fat included), those results begin to diminish. Many testimonials on the shortcomings of vegetarian diets are located at www.beyondveg.com. You, however, may be an exception. However, if you are not, watch for symptoms or cravings for protein/fat in the future. If this doesn't happen, that's fine. But if it does, don't ignore it.
Lastly, the fact that you feel better with no meat doesn't necessarily mean your carbs should come from grains. However, if you are doing well on them, do what works for you. The purpose of this article is not to show that nobody in the world should eat grain. The article simply shows a link between excess carbs and weight gain.
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Michele on June 04, 2003 at 17:30:23:
It's not that simple Michelle. Some people can eat many times more calories than another and not gain weight. Also, it is very possible to gain weight on a relatively small amount of calories. The person's metabolism must be taken into consideration.
Also, high fat/protein, lower carb diets can be lower calorie or equal in calories to higher carb, lowfat/protein diets. The reason is, fat satisfies. People on higher fat diets eat less because they stay full longer. People on high carb diets tend to eat more because carbohydrates generally burn faster than proteins/fats.
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by peterb on June 05, 2003 at 00:51:32:
Yes, I expect that and that resulted here to an extent. Instead of taking the study for what it was, certain people tried to rationalize their "side" by taking the study beyond what it was meant to show. One person asked what happens when the diet is broken. Although that may be a concern, it's not the point here. Another person stated that they feel better on a low meat diet. Again, that's great for the individual but they missed the point of the study. All I can do is post them. I can't take responsibility for the agendas that follow from some of the people posting LOL.
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by HY on June 05, 2003 at 14:11:10:
HY, Thessa wasn't claiming anything but just asking a question.
In Reply to: You'll say anything in retaliation posted by HY on June 05, 2003 at 14:05:12:
I hear you harp on CHD as if that's the only reason you believe so strongly in the mediterean-type diet. Here's some good reading for you about CHD.
With courage and care Dr. Ravnskov exposes the lack of experimental evidence for the diet-heart theory, which claims that eating less fat and cholesterol will prevent atheroslcerosis (hardening of the arteries) and myocardial infarctions (heart attacks). By examining original peer-reviewed literature, the author finds no support for the diet-heart theory.
He gives examples of scientific fraud among efforts to support the theory, including the deliberate selective omission of data points, and the deliberate assignment of subjects in a clinical trial to treatment or to control groups by physicians with the subject's medical records in hand. He shows how the abstract or conclusions of a number of papers are at odds with the actual data in the papers. He demonstrates how the use of one statistical method in preference to another can give a false impression that there is an effect, where there is, in fact, none.
He shows how the reporting of differences in fatality rates by per cent reduction (say, a 50% reduction in relative risk) is actually misleading when the actual death rates are quite small in both the treatment and control groups of subjects in diet or drug studies.
For example, a treatment that changes the absolute survival rate over a multi-year period from 99.0% to 99.5% represents a 50% reduction in relative risk, from 1% to 0.5% absolute. This is often described in papers as a 50% reduction in death rate. However, when the difference is barely significant statistically, as was often the case, Ravnskov points out that there is no real reason to recommend adoption of the treatment, especially if there are serious side-effects.
"The truth, were it known, would send pharmaceutical stocks plunging. In most studies, the increased risk is present only above a level of cholesterol that includes just a small percentage of the total population. [These are the approximately 1% of people with a genetic defect called familial hypercholesteremia.]
And women can stop worrying immediately because high cholesterol is not a risk factor for the female sex. Few comments have been made on this peculiar fact in all the vast literature on cholesterol. When it is mentioned at all, it is said that female sex hormones protect against heart attacks."
"In fact, it seems more dangerous for women to have low cholesterol than high. Dr. Bernard Forette and a team of French researchers from Paris found that old women with very high cholesterol live the longest. The death rate was more than 5 times higher for women who had very low cholesterol. In their report, the French doctors warned against cholesterol lowering in elderly women. But they could as well have warned against cholesterol lowering in any woman, or, to be more precise, in anyone at all."
Dr. Ravnskov went on to show that higher levels of high-density-lipoprotein (HDL, "good" cholesterol) are not protective against CHD, and that lower levels of low-density-lipoprotein (LDL,"bad" cholesterol) are not beneficial, although the expected associations of each with CHD are present.
Here again, conclusions at odds with the researchers own data were presented. Intimations that there are "many" or "definitive" studies in reports and papers were shown to be false by showing that citations often led to other reviews, each trusting the last, and ending at very few original studies.
"High-fat foods raise blood cholesterol." Dr. Ancel Keys was one of the main proponents of this myth. In a paper published in 1958, Keys showed a graph of the per cent calories from fat in the food of various countries vs. the mean serum cholesterol levels. The data points fell on a straight line, showing an excellent correlation.
Dr. Ravnskov added data points from a number of countries deliberately ignored by Dr. Keys. These fall nowhere near the line. Furthermore, CHD death rates among subjects in Finland, Greece and Yugoslavia with similar serum cholesterol levels varied 5-fold depending on which area of the country they lived in!
Four studies in the US, one in the UK, one in Israel and one in Finland failed to show any correlation between diet and serum cholesterol levels.
"Numerous studies have shown that in people who eat a normal Western diet, the effect on blood cholesterol of eating 2 or 3 extra eggs per day over a long period of time can hardly be measured..."
Ravnskov presents the results of a number of trials of statin drugs in which total death rates are slightly lower than those of the controls. In an early trial of lovastatin (EXCEL) on 8,000 subjects the absolute death rate from all causes after just 1 year was 0.5% vs. 0.2% in the placebo group.
Kilmer S. McCully, Ph. D., M. D., in technical papers and a book: "The Heart Revolution: the Extraordinary Discovery that Finally Laid the Cholesterol Myth to Rest", Harper Perennial, 2000, wrote: "But no study anywhere has ever proven that lowering the amount of cholesterol in the diet reduces the risk of heart disease. And lowering cholesterol through drugs won't prevent arteries from hardening if homocysteine is high."
McCully is the discoverer of the fact that the undesirable amino acid called homocysteine is an actual cause of atherosclerosis and CHD.
Based on Ravnskov's meticulous analyses as well as the considerable support for his stance shown by others who have also studied the cholesterol data.
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by R. on June 05, 2003 at 15:39:22:
You're right. I made a mistake. Can't be perfect after all this posting
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by HY on June 05, 2003 at 14:25:37:
don't worry too much about those who don't "get it," some never will look at the evidence honestly.
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by thessa on June 05, 2003 at 12:48:51:
I was going to post, however HY summed it up for me.
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by peterb on June 05, 2003 at 00:51:32:
how sad the blind leading the blind. doctor mercola spins a headline 180 degrees from the truth and his followers gobble it up withour analysis or independent thought. the psychological drivers behind jonestown become readily apparent...
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by watcher on June 05, 2003 at 20:12:15:
please explain how he "spins" these studies
-HY
In Reply to: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Helping You on June 04, 2003 at 14:00:47:
I am not on the Atkins Diet, but I do high protein, low carb. And believe me, it works. I know for a fact that if I want to gain a couple of pounds, all I need to do is eat some carbs. That'll do it for me. So, I have been staying away from a lot of carbs and sticking to my high protein/low carb way of eating. For me its not a diet. Just thought I'd add my two cents in.
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by HY on June 06, 2003 at 00:25:15:
explain how those studies show grains cause weight gain
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by HY on June 05, 2003 at 14:19:33:
HY, Thanks for your input..Beleive me I do eat meat..I just try to keep the amount to no more than 3 to 4 oz at anyone time and only at one meal..I have said before most people gain weight because they eat too much food..We like to " supper size " everything..Steve
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by watcher on June 06, 2003 at 06:58:51:
You're spinning it again! If you can't answer a direct question, don't make acusations. You made the assumption, now the burden of proof is on you my friend
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Steve on June 06, 2003 at 08:43:19:
Oh, good. A little meat can go a long way for those that don't require much. You are right about the overeating as well.
-HY
In Reply to: Atkins Diet ..... posted by I AGREE on June 06, 2003 at 06:52:51:
Hi. Thanks for your comments. You are like the other 2/3 of us that require more protein/fat in the diet. Only about 1/3 of people require the reverse type of diet.
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by watcher on June 06, 2003 at 06:58:51:
please read Dr. stoll's comments on Dr. Mercola here
http://askwaltstollmd.com/wwwboard/messages/174006.shtml
just fyi for you people so against him
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by HY on June 05, 2003 at 14:11:10:
That quip wasn't a quote from a review. It was a quote from the summary as written by the publisher.
After careful consideration I've decided to get The Nutrition Solution: A Guide to Your Metabolic Type by Harold J. Kristal instead.
Really HY, sometimes you are so defensive and condescending it's hard to hold a conversation with you.
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by R. on June 05, 2003 at 15:39:22:
Thanks for pointing that out R
In Reply to: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Helping You on June 04, 2003 at 14:00:47:
I don't completely agree with the atkins diet. I agree with the idea of low carbs. I think alot of people think it's a free ticket to eat all the fatty protein, fat & dairy they want, when I think lean protein should be stressed!!!! It was promoted by announcing to people they can eat all the bacon, sausage and eggs they want. Saturated fat & trans-fatty fats are harmful period. But not enough people get their omegas. I think if you cut out the high fat protein, and stick with low-fat proteins, and also stress lots of vegetables & smaller amounts of fruit, low carbs low on the glycemic index (yes, carbs have a purpose!), and increase you're heart healthy fats, you have a perfect diet. Atkins may lower your cholesterol/trig. but think of how much lower they may be if you stick with lean protein! I'll let you know how I do, because I'm doing that right now, and I'm finally losing weight. My cholesteral/Trig. were high, so I'm going to have them tested again when I lose the weight.
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Wendy on June 06, 2003 at 15:59:13:
P.S. I tried Atkins. I ate my fill, but you know what???
My body was DYING for carbs after my meal!!!!!! You just can't bypass that. Maybe it's easier for a man, because their bodies crave protein more than woman - except for my husband the sugar freak, HE's another story : )...
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Wendy on June 06, 2003 at 15:59:13:
Thanks for your comments. You are right on some very important points, especially not getting enough omega-3. However, eating low fat proteins is not advisable because fat is needed to assimilate proteins. Also, although trans-fats are PROVEN harmful, saturated fats are not. They are "suspect" by many but far from proven. The problem I have with the whole cholesterol/heart disease theory, is that 65% of all people who get heart attacks have NORMAL cholesterol levels. That doesn't say much for the connection there. Thanks
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by PhillyLady on June 04, 2003 at 21:27:57:
He wouldn't know. Has HY really read that book? The book says that one diet can have virtually opposite effect on people with different metabolisms. Yet he reccommends one type of diet as optimal for everyone. Go figure...
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by HY on June 06, 2003 at 17:48:25:
Yes, I understand we all need fat in our diet, but isn't the fat from lean protein enough? Then throw in your omegas, isn't that enough? THAT's the study they need to conduct! Low carb/low fat protein/high omega/veg. etc. vs./Atkins high fat-high protein/low carb diet! THEN I'll believe it! I know they're onto something with the fat & carbs, but they just need to pinpoint WHY...All our lives we've been led to believe that fat is bad. It'll take alot of studies to convince people otherwise. People don't want to play russian roulette with their health unless the facts are all laid out....
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Wendy on June 06, 2003 at 16:05:37:
I think there are times when their bodies crave woman more than protein. hehe Sorry, your husband is gay. :(
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Wendy on June 06, 2003 at 20:32:41:
The body uses either fat or glucose for fuel. When you limit dietary carbs beyond a certain limit, your body switches to burning fat.
If you consume a lot of protein with little fat, you can end up with the extreme fat-hunger known as rabbit-starvation [http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/nasty_brutish_short.html]. "Rabbit eaters, if they have no fat from another source—beaver, moose, fish—will develop diarrhoea in about a week, with headache, lassitude, a vague discomfort." Maybe that's why Michele has said she'd had "the runs" if she were on the Atkins diet.
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by HY on June 06, 2003 at 17:48:25:
Another problem I have with the theory is that arterial plague consists of about 75% of the so called "heart healthy" fatty acids (mostly polyunsaturated fatty acids.
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by HY on June 06, 2003 at 10:41:22:
That particular article doesn't explain why the grains are the culprit.
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Mundy on June 06, 2003 at 21:14:19:
No, definately not, think you misunderstood that one - he's got a sweet tooth...oh you were kidding...small, very small chuckle...
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by HA on June 06, 2003 at 19:03:37:
No, he doesn't. Go figure before you post!
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by thessa on June 06, 2003 at 12:14:48:
Please share your opinion about the book with us when you're done with it.
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Wendy on June 06, 2003 at 20:32:41:
You are right, and that's why this whole debate is spiraling out of control. Hopefully, studies will be done. The fat from lean proteins might be enough for a person that requires more carbs but for a person that needs more protein/fat to thrive, this won't be enough. That is another problem with clinical studies. They do not take individuality into consideration. If they had conducted this Atkins diets entirely on people who are "carb" types, the diet would have failed miserably. However, it seems there are more protein types than carb types but again, that's tough to prove. we'll have to wait and see
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by R. on June 06, 2003 at 21:30:50:
That wasn't the point of the article to begin with. This person decided to make GRAINS the issue in this article. I said many times that I posted this article simply for what it is. Many people supporting high grain consumption decided to make the study into more than it is.
-HY
In Reply to: To Thessa: the metabollic typing book posted by R. on June 06, 2003 at 21:57:39:
You bet. For now it's still on my amazon wish list. Until I scrape up the cash to treat myself to it :)
In Reply to: Re: To Thessa: the metabollic typing book posted by thessa on June 07, 2003 at 00:25:02:
Probably better you are getting the Kristal. (I will be getting it too.) The Wolcott book is good, but IMO spends way too much space on selling the *general* concept of metabolic typing, explaining it over and over, and not enough space on particulars. Also, it focuses on only one of the homeostatic systems in the body - the Oxidative system. It allows you to determine if you are a Fast, Slow, or Mixed Oxidizer. This is one determinant (but not the only one) of the macronutrient percentage of carbs vs. fat/protein/purines which you (according to the system) should be eating.
IMO the Healthexcel program is way superior to the book (figures because you pay way more for it).
In Reply to: Re: To Thessa: the metabolic typing book posted by Jan S. on June 07, 2003 at 01:50:21:
Thanks Jan, I appreciate the info
In Reply to: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Helping You on June 04, 2003 at 14:00:47:
HY, i respect a lot of what you say and you provide a lot of good info. But where did you get the idea that fats are required to assimilate protein? Protein is digested and absorbed by enzymes than fats and completely w/out and presence of fats. For example recent studies on lifters show whey protein w/ NO fat taken before a workout increases muscle fiber size. There is no fat taken in during this ingestion of protein, which supports that no fat is necessary to absorb the amino acids from a protein source.
Regarding carbohydrates, look for research by JP Flatt. Denovo Lipogenesis, the conversion of carbs to fat, does NOT occur to a significant degree in humans. This process occurs readily in rats (overeating carbs leads to great fat gain in rats), but again, NOT in humans. Studies have shown massive carbohydrate feedings producing little to no excess fat gain. One requirement to prevent the excess fat gain is to minimize fat intake during high carb feedings, and to keep fructose and sucrose (50% fructose) to a minimum as fructose is only stored as liver glycogen (which stores 50-70g on avg), once this is overfilled fat storage is more likely during a high cal intake.
In Reply to: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by Helping You on June 04, 2003 at 14:00:47:
To add to the controversy about "safe fats", here's an article I read about canola and it's dangers...Oh, I think I'm sticking to walnuts & walnut oil, or olive oil. Forget fish oil (someone says it causes men's sperm counts to nosedive and we're trying to conceive) or flaxseed (oxidation can cause worse plaque buildup than without). I've been using canola for 15 years now. I have an aunt who is a big butter user - she has been through ovarian & breast cancer in the space of two years (No one has ever had those types of cancer in our family). I'm starting to go CRAZY over this subject!! Will the REAL healthy fat please stand up?????
http://www.aspartame.ca/page_oho3.htm
(no, it's not ABOUT aspartame) Quite a few other articles came up with the search "dangers of canola oil"
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by pete69 on June 07, 2003 at 10:12:46:
It is proven that simple carbs & sugars contribute greatly to arterial disease. They explained it perfectly in layman's terms on the oprah show a couple of weeks ago. If you added a little water to a sugary substance it becomes sticky. This is what happens in your arteries. The sticky substance sticks to the arteries walls & grabs the fat, which then builds up & clogs your arteries. Kind of like fly paper : ) If you smoke, your arteries are constricted even further, which leaves even less room for blood flow if you have plaque buildup. So regardless of the weight issue, it's not healthy for your heart.
In Reply to: Canola Dangerous??? posted by Wendy on June 07, 2003 at 10:59:10:
Where did you read that fish oil causes sperm count to decrease?
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by pete69 on June 07, 2003 at 10:12:46:
I thought myself or R posted this information already. If this is still unclear let me know
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by thessa on June 06, 2003 at 12:14:48:
Sorry, I read your post wrong. Relax. I've had a lot to deal with here
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Atkins Diet results published in New England Journal... posted by HY on June 08, 2003 at 00:48:47:
No problem
In Reply to: Re: Canola Dangerous??? posted by HY on June 08, 2003 at 00:45:55:
I think it was in a post in the archives under essential oils/fatty acids. I'm not saying I put any weight in it, just don't want to take the chance...
In Reply to: Canola Dangerous??? posted by Wendy on June 07, 2003 at 10:59:10:
Hi, Wendy.
I agree with HY.
What authority will you trust? Have you read Udo Erasmus' "Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill"?
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Canola Dangerous??? posted by HY on June 08, 2003 at 00:45:55:
If I am not mistaken, it was Ray Peat who's said that. He maintains that there are no essential fatty acids for humans, and that all polyunsaturated fatty acids are dangerous. See
In Reply to: fish oil - sperm count posted by R. on June 10, 2003 at 19:51:14:
Thanks, R.
How does Ray explain vitamins and minerals, phytochemicals, etc. that are also essential (cannot be made inside the human body but still are an essential part of the machinery?
Walt
In Reply to: Re: fish oil - sperm count posted by Walt Stoll on June 11, 2003 at 08:49:33:
I haven't ready any of his work about vitamins and minerals.
And from me personally, phytochemicals are not essential for human physiology. They can be beneficial (sometimes very beneficial) but not essential.
In Reply to: Re: fish oil - sperm count posted by R. on June 11, 2003 at 14:17:42:
Thanks, R.
First of all, phytochemicals were only discovered to be helpful to humans about 10 years ago. Since they cannot be made within the human, they are EXACTLY the same as vitamins when they were first discovered. It took years before they were classified as "essential".
If a substance is "helpful" and cannot be made in the human body, what but "essential' would you think it should be called?
The time is past for which the RDAs (how little can the organism get by with before it dies or has serious illness) are the paradigm. The time is coming when the OHRs [optimal health requirements] (how much of which nutrients will produce the optimal health in the individual) will be the name of the game.
Where do you think phytochemicals will be listed, them?
Walt
In Reply to: Re: fish oil - sperm count (Archive in supplements.) posted by Walt Stoll on June 12, 2003 at 08:15:05:
phytochemicals were only discovered to be helpful to humans about 10 years ago.
Maybe in your Universe, Walt. The humankind and the animal kingdom has used phytochemicals for their benefits for thousand (more like millions, probably) of years. Or maybe you meant 10,000 years? They possibly had different names for them (or not at all, in case of animals), but they sure knew that plants had something helpful to them. I am 32 y.o., but I have heard about medicinal qualities of phytochemicals for as long as I can remember myself. Perhaps, you are talking from the point of view of mainstream American doctors who have only recently discovered a connection between one's diet and health.
Since they cannot be made within the human, they are EXACTLY the same as vitamins when they were first discovered. It took years before they were classified as "essential". If a substance is "helpful" and cannot be made in the human body, what but "essential' would you think it should be called?
Walt, I think it is crucial that people use the same language when discussing things; otherwise, it is impossible to agree on anything or to even understand what people are saying, which makes usefulness of having discussions questionable, at best. So, I will assume we are using standard English. And according to Merriam-Webster dictionary of English language, essential "implies belonging to the very nature of a thing and therefore being incapable of removal without destroying the thing itself or its character". In the area of nutrition, as you mentioned, the word is applied to a substance without which an organism dies or has serious illness. Now, if you use this standard definition of the word and the fact that there have been (and still are) whole peoples that live virtually only on animal derived foods (and you should be aware of them from reading work of Weston Price and others), you should conclude that phytochemicals are not essential to humans. Exceptions could be those substances (and I am not aware of those; if you do, please let me know) that humans obtain from animals that they, in turn, get from plants and no other source.
Being "helpful" to an organism and not being made by the organism is insufficient to call the substance essential to the organism. Let's not dilute the power of the language! We have enough to argue about. Come up with another term if you feel like it, but don't use the word essential for what is not. Call phytochemicals very helpful if you like. Or
In Reply to: A question of essentiality of phytochemicals (Archive in supplements.) posted by R. on June 12, 2003 at 22:07:33:
You surely know, R., that I was talking about conventional medicine discovfering this ancient truth!
How do you catagorize the discovery of vitamins 100 years ago? Before that they were not known to be "essential". Obviously, the cave men knew it and practiced it by seeking out the foods that had traditionally allowed them to survive. What the hell are we arguing about here anyhow?
Optimal wellness is my standard, now, not just barely surviving. In MY book, if something is essential for optimal wellness, and the body cannot make it, it is an essential nutrient. If we live long enough we will see this come to pass as the standard of practice in this country.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: A question of essentiality of phytochemicals (Archive in supplements.) posted by Walt Stoll on June 13, 2003 at 09:57:53:
Optimal wellness is my standard, now, not just barely surviving.
So is mine. I wasn't talking about barely surviving.
In MY book, if something is essential for optimal wellness, and the body cannot make it, it is an essential nutrient.
My point was that phytochemicals are not essential for optimal wellness, and I expected you to know this from reading Price's work. He documented peoples that didn't consume much phytochemicals, if at all, and were healthy anyway, didn't he?
In Reply to: Re: Canola Dangerous??? posted by Walt Stoll on June 08, 2003 at 10:50:58:
Sorry I'm responding a week later - hectic week....I'd like to know what essential fatty acids are safe and who has the studies to back them up?? Do flaxseed (capsules) really cause oxidation, is canola safe? I'm staying away from fish right now (trying to conceive). I won't take fish oil capsules even if there is a suggestion that it might impair fertility. I didn't read the book you mentioned but will probably take a trip to the library this week. But I'm very reluctant to put my faith in one persons opinion, especially since we've all strived for years to eat a diet rich in carbs, low in fat based on thousands of studies and the common attitude that saturated fat clogs our arteries. Logically, in my mind, it does make more sense that saturated is worse than unsaturated. I mean, compare congealed bacon fat to room temperature vegetable oil. And which will clog your drain? Just some thoughts....Would appreciate any advice on what to take....Thanks Dr. Stoll...
In Reply to: Re: A question of essentiality of phytochemicals (Archive in supplements.) posted by R. on June 13, 2003 at 16:22:36:
Thanks, R.
I think EVERYBODY'S definition of "healthy" is suspect.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Canola Dangerous??? posted by Wendy on June 13, 2003 at 22:33:14:
Fortunately, Wendy.
The human metabolism is VERY different from your sink drain!
Juat think about the Eskimos who live on seal blubber and have one of the lowest incidences of clogged arteries in the world!
Consider wellness as a life style.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Canola Dangerous??? posted by Walt Stoll on June 14, 2003 at 09:14:45:
Hmmmm, seal blubber, there's a thought. No, couldn't do it, seals are too adorable. Whale blubber, maybe. Seriously though, yes, I understand the body is different from a drain. And I am going to try an atkins type diet. What about the flaxseed & canola? I bought flaxseed capsules...should I toss them?? I had nothing but good effects from them two weeks that I took them, but what about long term? Thanks,
Wendy
In Reply to: Re: Canola Dangerous??? posted by Wendy on June 14, 2003 at 13:44:18:
Thanks, Wendy.
The flaxseed oil capsules are good stuff. Once opened, keep them in the refrigerator.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: A question of essentiality of phytochemicals (Archive in supplements.) posted by Walt Stoll on June 14, 2003 at 08:49:27:
Yes, and I will go for being physically developed well, strong, and having practically no degenerative diseases. I am sure there are some to whom this doesn't appeal. As long as they choose it being fully conscious, I am fine with that.
Follow Ups:
Re: A question of essentiality of phytochemicals (Archive in supplements.)
Posted by Walt Stoll on June 13, 2003 at 09:57:53:
Follow Ups:
Re: A question of essentiality of phytochemicals (Archive in supplements.)
Posted by R. on June 13, 2003 at 16:22:36:
Follow Ups:
Re: Canola Dangerous???
Posted by Wendy on June 13, 2003 at 22:33:14:
Follow Ups:
Re: A question of essentiality of phytochemicals (Archive in supplements.)
Posted by Walt Stoll on June 14, 2003 at 08:49:27:
Follow Ups:
Re: Canola Dangerous???
Posted by Walt Stoll on June 14, 2003 at 09:14:45:
Follow Ups:
Re: Canola Dangerous???
Posted by Wendy on June 14, 2003 at 13:44:18:
Follow Ups:
Re: Canola Dangerous???
Posted by Walt Stoll on June 15, 2003 at 08:10:14:
Follow Ups:
Re: A question of essentiality of phytochemicals (Archive in supplements.)
Posted by R. on June 17, 2003 at 02:02:13:
Follow Ups:
[ Supplements Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ]
[ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ]
[ Recommended Books ]
[ Bulletin Board ]
Search this site!