Low carb diet healthiest and quickest for weight loss

El_Dangeroso

From CNN:


ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- The Atkins diet may have proved itself after all.
A diet low in carbohydrates, found in bread, improved cholesterol more than two other diets.

A diet low in carbohydrates, found in bread, improved cholesterol more than two other diets.

A low-carb diet and a Mediterranean-style regimen helped people lose more weight than a traditional low-fat diet in one of the longest and largest studies to compare the dueling weight-loss techniques.

A bigger surprise: The low-carb diet improved cholesterol more than the other two. Some critics had predicted the opposite.

"It is a vindication," said Abby Bloch of the Dr. Robert C. and Veronica Atkins Foundation, a philanthropy group that honors the Atkins' diet's creator and was the study's main funder.

However, all three approaches -- the low-carb diet, a low-fat diet and a Mediterranean diet -- achieved weight loss and improved cholesterol.

The study is remarkable not only because it lasted two years, much longer than most, but because of the huge proportion of people who stuck with the diets: 85 percent.

Researchers approached the Atkins Foundation with the idea for the study. But the foundation played no role in the study's design or reporting of the results, said the lead author, Iris Shai of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

Other experts said the study, being published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, was highly credible.

"This is a very good group of researchers," said Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.

The research was done in a controlled environment: an isolated nuclear research facility in Israel. The 322 participants got their main meal of the day, lunch, at a central cafeteria.

"The workers can't easily just go out to lunch at a nearby Subway or McDonald's," said Dr. Meir Stampfer, the study's senior author and a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.

In the cafeteria, the appropriate foods for each diet were identified with colored dots, using red for low-fat, green for Mediterranean and blue for low-carb.

As for breakfast and dinner, the dieters were counseled on how to stick to their eating plans and were asked to fill out questionnaires on what they ate, Stampfer said.
Health Library

* Fitness and Nutrition

The low-fat diet -- no more than 30 percent of calories from fat -- restricted calories and cholesterol and focused on low-fat grains, vegetables and fruits as options. The Mediterranean diet had similar calorie, fat and cholesterol restrictions, emphasizing poultry, fish, olive oil and nuts.

The low-carb diet set limits for carbohydrates but none for calories or fat. It urged dieters to choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein.

Most of the participants were men; all men and women in the study got roughly equal amounts of exercise, the study's authors said.

Average weight loss for those in the low-carb group was 10.3 pounds after two years. Those in the Mediterranean diet lost 10 pounds, and those on the low-fat regimen dropped 6.5.

More surprising were the measures of cholesterol. Critics have long acknowledged that an Atkins-style diet could help people lose weight but feared that over the long term, it may drive up cholesterol because it allows more fat.

But the low-carb approach seemed to trigger the most improvement in several cholesterol measures, including the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, the "good" cholesterol. For example, someone with total cholesterol of 200 and an HDL of 50 would have a ratio of 4 to 1. The optimum ratio is 3.5 to 1, according to the American Heart Association.

Doctors see that ratio as a sign of a patient's risk for hardening of the arteries. "You want that low," Stampfer said.

The ratio declined by 20 percent in people on the low-carb diet, compared with 16 percent in those on the Mediterranean and 12 percent in low-fat dieters.

The study is not the first to offer a favorable comparison of an Atkins-like diet. Research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association last year found that overweight women on the Atkins plan had slightly better blood pressure and cholesterol readings than those on the low-carb Zone diet, the low-fat Ornish diet and a low-fat diet that followed U.S. government guidelines.

The heart association has long recommended low-fat diets to reduce heart risks, but some of its leaders have noted that the Mediterranean diet has also proved safe and effective.

The heart association recommends a low-fat diet even more restrictive than the one in the study, said Dr. Robert Eckel, the association's past president who is a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado-Denver.

It does not recommend the Atkins diet. However, a low-carb approach is consistent with heart association guidelines so long as there are limitations on the kinds of saturated fats often consumed by people on the Atkins diet, Eckel said.

The new study's results favored the Atkins-like approach less when subgroups such as diabetics and women were examined.

Among the 36 diabetics, only those on the Mediterranean diet lowered blood sugar levels. Among the 45 women, those on the Mediterranean diet lost the most weight.

"I think these data suggest that men may be much more responsive to a diet in which there are clear limits on what foods can be consumed," such as an Atkins-like diet, said Dr. William Dietz of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"It suggests that because women have had more experience dieting or losing weight, they're more capable of implementing a more complicated diet," said Dietz, who heads the CDC's nutrition unit.

El_Dangeroso

Oops. Wrong forum. Could the mods please move to nutrition and diet?

_blank_

Done

corkcomp

i would seriously urge anyone wishing to loose weight to not go down the very low / no carb road unless they have tried all other options, obviously its a good idea to cut out white / processed carbs and sugar but anyone advocating not eating fruit / wholegrains in moderation is scaremongering IMO

g'em

Of the diets discussed above, the Mediterranean Diet is probably the one that appeals to most and would be considered the most balanced in a very traditional sense (i.e. doesn't cut out any food groups, not overly restrictive, low-GI overall).

From Mediterranean diet pyramid: a cultural model for healthy eating. Willet et al., American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1995.

The diet is characterized by abundant plant foods (fruit, vegetables, breads, other forms of cereals, potatoes, beans, nuts, and seeds), fresh fruit as the typical daily dessert, olive oil as the principal source of fat, dairy products (principally cheese and yogurt), and fish and poultry consumed in low to moderate amounts, zero to four eggs consumed weekly, red meat consumed in low amounts, and wine consumed in low to moderate amounts, normally with meals. This diet is low in saturated fat (< or = 7-8% of energy), with total fat ranging from < 25% to > 35% of energy throughout the region.

The key thing is: no processed or high sugar foods. That, I hope, is something that everyone can agree is the Holy Grail of fat loss!!

EileenG

corkcomp wrote: »

i would seriously urge anyone wishing to loose weight to not go down the very low / no carb road unless they have tried all other options, obviously its a good idea to cut out white / processed carbs and sugar but anyone advocating not eating fruit / wholegrains in moderation is scaremongering IMO

Anyone who claims that Atkins is the diet with "no fruit or veg" has never read any of the books. I've been eating very low carb for over seven years now, but I always warn anyone thinking of doing Atkins/low carb not to bother unless they are prepared to eat a huge amount of vegetables. I eat far more veg now than I did when I was eating a "balanced" diet. And for breakfast this morning, I had cherries and loganberries picked from my garden. Yum.

corkcomp

EileenG wrote: »

Anyone who claims that Atkins is the diet with "no fruit or veg" has never read any of the books. I've been eating very low carb for over seven years now, but I always warn anyone thinking of doing Atkins/low carb not to bother unless they are prepared to eat a huge amount of vegetables. I eat far more veg now than I did when I was eating a "balanced" diet. And for breakfast this morning, I had cherries and loganberries picked from my garden. Yum.

i never mentioned the atkins diet I was making the point that ... any diet that wards people off fruit (we obviously agree on this one, your breakfeast this morning sounds great ) / veg or wholegrains is not necessary to achieve good results ... The basis of the medeteranian diet mention above looks sound .. not lacking in any major areas and has plenty good fats / oils and fruit / veg / wholegrains / lean meat .

EileenG

corkcomp wrote: »

i never mentioned the atkins diet

Atkins was mentioned in the original post.

ApeXaviour

corkcomp wrote:

any diet that wards people off fruit / veg or wholegrains is not necessary to achieve good results ...

Fruit in moderation, some are very sugary. Veg is fantastic. However, I'd certainly ward people away from "wholegrains". I abhor the fact that it has become synonymous with "healthy-food". They're very nutritionally lacking. They provide little usable protein, bad fats (omega 6 which we get way too much of already). They're mostly empty carbohydrate, which causes an insulin response and can contribute to diabetes, weight gain, heart-disease, bad cholesterol, high blood pressure etc. ad infinitum (though clearly not nearly to the same extent refined carbohydrates and sugars can). They inhibit magnesium absorption (bad for your heart) as well as the absorption other minerals such calcium etc. leading to osteoporosis. Any vitamins/minerals present in grains are usually very poorly absorbed... Grains have a high anti-nutrient content, phytates and lectins.

Tangential to that, our digestive systems simply aren't designed to handle any significant amount of grain. Here's a paper by Prof. Loren Cordain which goes into great detail about how much your alimentary canal dislikes grains.
http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/grains-leg/grains-legumes-1a.shtml

A bigger surprise: The low-carb diet improved cholesterol more than the other two.

I suppose it would be a huge surprise for some, thogh the information has been out there for a long time. Most independent research has found this. Any that have found the opposite are hacking together wild variables merely to please their funding body (usually grain/sugar agricultural lobbyists/corporations), or they've muddled their conclusions to fit with the status quo (I can show some pretty funny examples of this).

The low-carb diet set limits for carbohydrates but none for calories or fat. It urged dieters to choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein.

I'd say they'd have had even better blood lipid profiles (i.e. cholesterol) if they removed vegetable oil and pulses, stuck to more animal derived sources of protein with nuts and olive-oil.

El_Dangeroso

EVERY diet cuts down on some food group.. it's funny noone ever decries low fat for cutting down on a food group even though fat is essential for life and carbs aren't.

Why do people consider low carb so 'extreme', like the poor plebs heads would explode if told they shouldn't eat a potato..give people the facts and trust them to make their own decisions. But not recommending a diet that is the healthiest for you is not only silly, but really condescending. Like the recommendations for exercise.. the government is happy if you just manage to get out for a 10 minute stroll down from 30 minutes a day..

Tell people the truth, they can handle it, and although not all will follow it, some will and will be healthier for the effort.

I was always confused about the Mediterranean diet. High in veg and low in sat fat I understand (though there's nothing wrong with sat fat).

Where do they get the data from? The original study was based on the Island of Crete. The locals there eat copious lamb and feta cheese, lots of sat fat, not that much carbs.. but then the study was hijacked by the Italians and extrapolated to the whole Mediterranean region.

But pasta? bread? Notice these items are conspicuously reduced in any Mediterranean diet book.. so basically the med diet is low carb with reduced dairy.

Also, before you take pop shots of Atkins, read the book.. vegetables and exercise are non-negotiable. You can include low GI fruit later on if you want.. but fruit is surprisingly low in the nutrient per calorie ratio (except berries which are low carb..) like Eileen I probably eat far more veg than the average person, way more than 5 a day , but low carb veg, which are unsurprisingly the highest in nutrients (broccoli, spinach, kale, cabbage, leeks,celery, radishes, bok choy). Nutritionists get up in arms when you deride fruit... but besides the vitamins, which you can get in abundance from low sugar veg, there isn't much to recommend oranges and apples.

Are we so scared that if we say that fruit isn't as good for you as we thought (don't get me wrong, it's not bad for you, just highly overrated) that people with otherwise poor diets will miss out on some vitamin C? Fruit and veg should not be lumped into the same category, is 2 bananas and 2 oranges and an apple really nutritionally equivalent to brocolli, red peppers and sprouts?

corkcomp

neddas wrote: »

EVERY diet cuts down on some food group.. it's funny noone ever decries low fat for cutting down on a food group even though fat is essential for life and carbs aren't.

Why do people consider low carb so 'extreme', like the poor plebs heads would explode if told they shouldn't eat a potato..give people the facts and trust them to make their own decisions. But not recommending a diet that is the healthiest for you is not only silly, but really condescending. Like the recommendations for exercise.. the government is happy if you just manage to get out for a 10 minute stroll down from 30 minutes a day..

Tell people the truth, they can handle it, and although not all will follow it, some will and will be healthier for the effort.

I was always confused about the Mediterranean diet. High in veg and low in sat fat I understand (though there's nothing wrong with sat fat).

Where do they get the data from? The original study was based on the Island of Crete. The locals there eat copious lamb and feta cheese, lots of sat fat, not that much carbs.. but then the study was hijacked by the Italians and extrapolated to the whole Mediterranean region.

But pasta? bread? Notice these items are conspicuously reduced in any Mediterranean diet book.. so basically the med diet is low carb with reduced dairy.

Also, before you take pop shots of Atkins, read the book.. vegetables and exercise are non-negotiable. You can include low GI fruit later on if you want.. but fruit is surprisingly low in the nutrient per calorie ratio (except berries which are low carb..) like Eileen I probably eat far more veg than the average person, way more than 5 a day , but low carb veg, which are unsurprisingly the highest in nutrients (broccoli, spinach, kale, cabbage, leeks,celery, radishes, bok choy). Nutritionists get up in arms when you deride fruit... but besides the vitamins, which you can get in abundance from low sugar veg, there isn't much to recommend oranges and apples.

Are we so scared that if we say that fruit isn't as good for you as we thought (don't get me wrong, it's not bad for you, just highly overrated) that people with otherwise poor diets will miss out on some vitamin C? Fruit and veg should not be lumped into the same category, is 2 bananas and 2 oranges and an apple really nutritionally equivalent to brocolli, red peppers and sprouts?

whether you chose to label the diet (enjoyed?) eaten by the islanders of crete as medeteranian or some other type of pseudo diet, it is far from perfect ... and it is also far from low carb, in fact a lot of their diet is based on bad / processed carbs such as white bread / pasta etc. The actual food content of the diet mentioned im G'ems post above looks sound and it works for me and many others (it doesnt really matter what we label it, medeteranian or otherwise)

The diet is characterized by abundant plant foods (fruit, vegetables, breads, other forms of cereals, potatoes, beans, nuts, and seeds), fresh fruit as the typical daily dessert, olive oil as the principal source of fat, dairy products (principally cheese and yogurt), and fish and poultry consumed in low to moderate amounts, zero to four eggs consumed weekly, red meat consumed in low amounts, and wine consumed in low to moderate amounts, normally with meals. This diet is low in saturated fat (< or = 7-8% of energy), with total fat ranging from < 25% to > 35% of energy throughout the region.

You say above that fruit is over-rated but not actually bad for you? yet you mentioned in a previous post that people get fat from eating fruit and that the fructose causes high triglyceride levels and heart disease

El_Dangeroso

corkcomp wrote: »

whether you chose to label the diet (enjoyed?) eaten by the islanders of crete as medeteranian or some other type of pseudo diet, it is far from perfect ... and it is also far from low carb, in fact a lot of their diet is based on bad / processed carbs such as white bread / pasta etc. The actual food content of the diet mentioned im G'ems post above looks sound and it works for me and many others (it doesnt really matter what we label it, medeteranian or otherwise)

Please back up what you say with references, who's diet is high in white bread and pasta? I don't really get what your point is. The concept of the Med diet is based on this study, as the cretians had low rates of heart disease, that is the whole reason the diet became idolised in the first place.

Just because some (lots in fact) people smoke until they were 90 with good health doesn't mean smoking 'works for them' they just have to genes necessary to avoid the damage it causes in others..

corkcomp wrote: »

The diet is characterized by abundant plant foods (fruit, vegetables, breads, other forms of cereals, potatoes, beans, nuts, and seeds), fresh fruit as the typical daily dessert, olive oil as the principal source of fat, dairy products (principally cheese and yogurt), and fish and poultry consumed in low to moderate amounts, zero to four eggs consumed weekly, red meat consumed in low amounts, and wine consumed in low to moderate amounts, normally with meals. This diet is low in saturated fat (< or = 7-8% of energy), with total fat ranging from < 25% to > 35% of energy throughout the region.

So if the diet is good for you (not disputing that it isn't), what about the diet makes it good for you? Low red meat? Well the French eat high red meat and high saturated fat and have low heart disease so it can't be that. Olive oil? Well the Americans consume a similar amount and have high heart disease. High consumption of fruit and veg? A recent study in china showed that the fattest people consumed the most fruit and veg (fat consumption was the same). Or a combination of all three? Who knows? Noone, because it amounts to anecdotal evidence, that for some reason has become nutritional dogma.

corkcomp wrote: »

You say above that fruit is over-rated but not actually bad for you? yet you mentioned in a previous post that people get fat from eating fruit and that the fructose causes high triglyceride levels and heart disease

Fruit in excess amounts can be detrimental to your health (such as in smoothies). Quoting people out of context is a sign of a poor argument.

corkcomp

neddas wrote: »

Please back up what you say with references, who's diet is high in white bread and pasta? I don't really get what your point is. The concept of the Med diet is based on this study, as the cretians had low rates of heart disease, that is the whole reason the diet became idolised in the first place.

Just because some (lots in fact) people smoke until they were 90 with good health doesn't mean smoking 'works for them' they just have to genes necessary to avoid the damage it causes in others..



So if the diet is good for you (not disputing that it isn't), what about the diet makes it good for you? Low red meat? Well the French eat high red meat and high saturated fat and have low heart disease so it can't be that. Olive oil? Well the Americans consume a similar amount and have high heart disease. High consumption of fruit and veg? A recent study in china showed that the fattest people consumed the most fruit and veg (fat consumption was the same). Or a combination of all three? Who knows? Noone, because it amounts to anecdotal evidence, that for some reason has become nutritional dogma.




Fruit in excess amounts can be detrimental to your health (such as in smoothies). Quoting people out of context is a sign of a poor argument.

my point about the pasta / white bread was simply that the islanders of crete eat a lot of this (i spent two summers working there) so your previous comment about their diet being high fat and low carb is rubbish)

a lot of foods in excess can be detrimental to ones health, i dont think i quoted anyone out of context, its just that you said two different things in separate posts ...

NotMe

The conclusion of the study was:

Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate diets may be effective alternatives to low-fat diets. The more favorable effects on lipids (with the low-carbohydrate diet) and on glycemic control (with the Mediterranean diet) suggest that personal preferences and metabolic considerations might inform individualized tailoring of dietary interventions.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/3/229

also
What the new "low carb" study really says

dr.bollocko

NotMe wrote: »

The conclusion of the study was:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/3/229

also
What the new "low carb" study really says

Wow, Tom Venuto's Blog! He's always right about everything and has no agenda selling his own diet plan, does he?

Corkcomp, you were in crete two years ago? Do you really think they eat the same diet that they did 50 years ago when the study was done? Does Ireland?

Lookit, the med diet is effective for weight loss, if you count calories. Any diet is effective for weight loss if you count calories. But the low carb participants in the study had no calorie limit... and yet they lost the most weight and had the best improvement of lipid profile. If that doesn't fit the definition of 'best', I dunno what does..

cozmik

I have to say my own experience with low carbing was not good on my health. It may well be the fastest way to lose weight but it is definitely NOT the healthiest in my book.

cheers

cozmik

El_Dangeroso

Hi Cosmik,

Not everyone transitions to low carb easy, did you cut down your carbs too low when you tried it maybe? I personally believe switching to induction levels (<20g a day) suddenly puts a lot of stress on your body, leaving you fatigued and generally out of sorts.. A lot of people cut their carbs and forget to up the fat, which is crucial.. Low carb is sort of a misnomer.. it's really high-fat. But dropping to 60g of carbs a day is easy enough without putting your body through the stress of ketosis.

cozmik

I believe my mistake was following health advice given on the internet without consulting my doctor first.

regards

cozmik

El_Dangeroso

Unfortunately many doctors (not all) are entirely unversed in the science of nutrition beyond one semester in university, and unless they are specialised, they are unlikely to keep up with the science, and you couldn't really expect them to, given the amount of continuous study they have to carry out. So a doctor's nutritional knowledge could date back to the 1970's when we thought that transfat was a healthy alternative or be based on studies highlighted in the media.

The internet is a powerful tool, there's a lot of dross but also good information. You have to develop a sense of discernment in what information you choose to believe based on your own judgement. This sense of sceptism then extends to newspapers and even to the medical profession. Which is my opinion is a good thing. You shouldn't just question what you read on the internet only to blindly accept what you read in other media.

My doctor said to me that barbecue food is bad for you as it contains nitrates. I checked out the research and realised the commonly held belief is based on a hypothetical paper that suggested the nitrates in charred food could could cause cancer.

The theory was based on the fact that microbes in a person's mouth change nitrate into nitrite. Researchers theorised that the nitrite would subsequently react with digested protein compounds in the stomach and produce cancer-causing nitrosamines. People were advised to avoid the nitrates contained in bacon and in bbq food.

But they were wrong.

Subsequent observation revealed that the anticipated reaction never happened. In fact, nitrates help protect you against food poisoning! Unfortunately, the theory had already received widespread publication and it's a commonly held belief among doctors today.

I don't know what your definition of 'healthy' is. I suppose if you didn't want lower blood pressure, increased insulin sensitivity, normal blood sugars, boosted energy levels and an excellent lipid profile then low carb wouldn't be for you.

So what happened when you 'tried' low carb? Did your kidneys asplode?

corkcomp

neddas wrote: »

Unfortunately many doctors (not all) are entirely unversed in the science of nutrition beyond one semester in university, and unless they are specialised, they are unlikely to keep up with the science, and you couldn't really expect them to, given the amount of continuous study they have to carry out. So a doctor's nutritional knowledge could date back to the 1970's when we thought that transfat was a healthy alternative or be based on studies highlighted in the media.

The internet is a powerful tool, there's a lot of dross but also good information. You have to develop a sense of discernment in what information you choose to believe based on your own judgement. This sense of sceptism then extends to newspapers and even to the medical profession. Which is my opinion is a good thing. You shouldn't just question what you read on the internet only to blindly accept what you read in other media.

My doctor said to me that barbecue food is bad for you as it contains nitrates. I checked out the research and realised the commonly held belief is based on a hypothetical paper that suggested the nitrates in charred food could could cause cancer.

The theory was based on the fact that microbes in a person's mouth change nitrate into nitrite. Researchers theorised that the nitrite would subsequently react with digested protein compounds in the stomach and produce cancer-causing nitrosamines. People were advised to avoid the nitrates contained in bacon and in bbq food.

But they were wrong.

Subsequent observation revealed that the anticipated reaction never happened. In fact, nitrates help protect you against food poisoning! Unfortunately, the theory had already received widespread publication and it's a commonly held belief among doctors today.

I don't know what your definition of 'healthy' is. I suppose if you didn't want lower blood pressure, increased insulin sensitivity, normal blood sugars, boosted energy levels and an excellent lipid profile then low carb wouldn't be for you.

So what happened when you 'tried' low carb? Did your kidneys asplode?

you seem to have great difficulty accepting that low carb doesnt work for everyone, by the same token it does work for some ... i guess there is no size fits all approach when it comes to diet ... I personally changed my lipid profile, along with blood pressure and fasting sugar levels for the better by adopting a high carb / fibre diet and getting most of my fat intake from olive oil and unsaturated fats .. that is a fact

cozmik

corkcomp wrote: »

you seem to have great difficulty accepting that low carb doesnt work for everyone,

I think the problem is many low-carbers have developed an irrational fear of carbs which leads them to get a little militant about this sort of thing. When people start avoiding perfectly healthy food because they are "too high in carbs", then you know things have gone too far! :eek:

El_Dangeroso

Trust me, my fear is very rational, of the damage that grains and sugar do to our bodies. Tell me one high carb food (>40g/100g) that is good for you and why.

Same tired ol' low carb is no carb argument. I get the most nutritional bang for my buck from the carbs I do eat (lowest blood sugar increase for highest vitamin, antioxidant and phytonutrient content). What's not healthier about that?

When you say that low carb isn't for everyone, you mean atkin's isn't for everyone, which is true. But everyone can cut their carbs somewhat and not feel weak, tired, deprived etc.

I don't doubt you improved your health, but think how much healthier you could be if you let go of your erroneous belief that eating something that our digestive system's weren't designed to deal with could ever be the healthiest option.

corkcomp

neddas wrote: »

Trust me, my fear is very rational, of the damage that grains and sugar do to our bodies. Tell me one high carb food (>40g/100g) that is good for you and why.

Same tired ol' low carb is no carb argument. I get the most nutritional bang for my buck from the carbs I do eat (lowest blood sugar increase for highest vitamin, antioxidant and phytonutrient content). What's not healthier about that?

When you say that low carb isn't for everyone, you mean atkin's isn't for everyone, which is true. But everyone can cut their carbs somewhat and not feel weak, tired, deprived etc.

I don't doubt you improved your health, but think how much healthier you could be if you let go of your erroneous belief that eating something that our digestive system's weren't designed to deal with could ever be the healthiest option.

no, when i say low carb isnt for everyone, i mean just that - low carb isnt for everyone, no mention of atkins also, in my experience anyone doing a lot of cardio / high intensity aerobic exercise can greatly benefit from a diet high in complex carbs.

you see thats the crunch, i dont believe it is an erroroneus belief, and i also think going on about the way our digestive system was "designed" is a bit silly... I could do a quick google right now and find loads of "studies" which say carbs are evil, i could also do the same for fats .. the point being that almost ANY belief has some study or other to back it up, which brings me back to the same conclusion, different things work for different people

El_Dangeroso

Last time I checked we shared the exact same digestive systems.

Mamo Wolde from Ethiopia won the gold medal in the Olympics for the marathon, consuming a low carb diet, so don't tell me people need carbs to perform physically. We wouldn't have thrived on a low carb diet for 4.5 million years if didn't have the optimal digestive system for it.

For the record, althletes are not known for their longevity, quite the opposite in fact.

We simply can't have evolved to consume a grain-based diet in the 10,000 years we've been eating it.

It's true there is a lot of conflicting studies are out there, that's why you have to be discerning like I said earlier. That why, for me, epidemiological studies are easy to dismiss. Ignore them and you're left with the better science, and all studies that compare lower carbs to higher carbs, the lower carb diets produce the healthiest results. Sorry, but it's true, I don't have any devotion to the low carb way of eating, but the weight of the evidence is on low carb's side.

corkcomp

neddas wrote: »

Last time I checked we shared the exact same digestive systems.

Mamo Wolde from Ethiopia won the gold medal in the Olympics for the marathon, consuming a low carb diet, so don't tell me people need carbs to perform physically. We wouldn't have thrived on a low carb diet for 4.5 million years if didn't have the optimal digestive system for it.

For the record, althletes are not known for their longevity, quite the opposite in fact.

We simply can't have evolved to consume a grain-based diet in the 10,000 years we've been eating it.

It's true there is a lot of conflicting studies are out there, that's why you have to be discerning like I said earlier. That why, for me, epidemiological studies are easy to dismiss. Ignore them and you're left with the better science, and all studies that compare lower carbs to higher carbs, the lower carb diets produce the healthiest results. Sorry, but it's true, I don't have any devotion to the low carb way of eating, but the weight of the evidence is on low carb's side.

hmm .. picking the name of one athlete who won a marathon over 40 years ago is hardly discerning evidence? I would say 90% of people i know eat a high carb diet (and a lot of bad carbs at that... ) so im not sure what you mean by "We" thriving on a low carb diet!

if the weight of evidence is so strongly on the side of low carb, are you saying most doctors / medical professionals are wrong? even younger doctors .. i doubt that

EileenG

corkcomp wrote: »

if the weight of evidence is so strongly on the side of low carb, are you saying most doctors / medical professionals are wrong? even younger doctors .. i doubt that

From personal experience of doctors and their knowledge of breastfeeding, I can definitely say that most doctors, even young ones, are not well versed in nutrition. They spend a matter of hours studying nutrition at college, and most of that concerns people with special needs, like diabetics or people with PKU. I've spoken to doctors about this and they admit that unless they have taken extra training or done extra study, they have only a surface knowledge of nutrition in healthy people. Most of the studies on the health benefits of low carb have come out in the last few years, so they weren't included in their study.

corkcomp

EileenG wrote: »

From personal experience of doctors and their knowledge of breastfeeding, I can definitely say that most doctors, even young ones, are not well versed in nutrition. They spend a matter of hours studying nutrition at college, and most of that concerns people with special needs, like diabetics or people with PKU. I've spoken to doctors about this and they admit that unless they have taken extra training or done extra study, they have only a surface knowledge of nutrition in healthy people. Most of the studies on the health benefits of low carb have come out in the last few years, so they weren't included in their study.

i would still rather take advice from a medical professional rather than a stranger on the internet Its strange, any doctors in my age group (circa mid - late 20's) that ive asked have said that nutrition is a big part of their study!

in terms of fitness / diet / general wellbeing, a good indicator for people might be the medical professional's own appearance ... e.g. i know of a doctor who eats several doughnuts a day and it shows so i wouldnt take nutritional advice there ...

EileenG

corkcomp wrote: »

i would still rather take advice from a medical professional rather than a stranger on the internet Its strange, any doctors in my age group (circa mid - late 20's) that ive asked have said that nutrition is a big part of their study!

I get phone calls from my doctor asking about breastfeeding. He admits that all he knows about it is his clinical experience, which is generally when things are going wrong. The fact that he's ringing me, rather than another doctor, implies that he is not an exception.

Nyum Nyum

EileenG wrote: »

I get phone calls from my doctor asking about breastfeeding. He admits that all he knows about it is his clinical experience,

He's unlikely to have any practical experience...

corkcomp

Nyum Nyum wrote: »

He's unlikely to have any practical experience...

exactly !! and any doctors ive asked about nutrition have not mentioned breast feading as it is not really relevant to the discussion

ApeXaviour

cozmik wrote: »

I think the problem is many low-carbers have developed an irrational fear of carbs which leads them to get a little militant about this sort of thing.

I think the problem is many high-carbers have developed an addiction and misguided loyalty to carbohydrates, leading them to get a little militant about this sort of thing. You know things have gone too far when they flaunt science, in spite of the evidence, and continue with fallacious ad hominem arguments. One is reminiscent of the tobacco pundits of the 60's and onward who clung desperately to the health benefits of smoking, labelling scientists and critics biased scaremongers.

Nutritional science is in it's infancy, so yes, I agree one should stick to what works for the individual, that's black box theory. However, I've little doubt that pretty much everybody can benefit from some level of carbohydrate restriction. On the whole, our metabolism and digestive systems are the same.

corkcomp wrote:

I could do a quick google right now and find loads of "studies" which say carbs are evil, i could also do the same for fats .. the point being that almost ANY belief has some study or other to back it up, which brings me back to the same conclusion, different things work for different people

This is why one must be discerning. Look at the funding body, the type of study and the actual results, not just the conclusion the authors derived from their results.

EileenG

Doctors are supposed to learn about breastfeeding in nutrition classes. It's actually more relevant to the general population than things like low carb diets since gov policy is that all babies should be breastfed. If an ordinary doctor doesn't know much about breastfeeding, it's a good bet that he or she is not up to date on recent discoveries on adult nutrition either.

I'd like to clarify. I'm not anti-carb. There is a definite place for carbs in general nutrition, especially when it comes to high intensity athletes, but I do think the general population eats far too many refined carbs. Am I being very cynical when I notice that the high carb foods tend to be the really cheap-mass produced stuff that has a high profit margin? If everyone ate salmon and broccoli, there isn't much of a mark-up on that. If everyone ate a ready-made "pasta meal with salmon (15%) and broccoli (20%)" and the rest a mishmash of cheap pasta and various starches, salt and thickeners, there's a huge profit to be made.

corkcomp

EileenG wrote: »

Doctors are supposed to learn about breastfeeding in nutrition classes. It's actually more relevant to the general population than things like low carb diets since gov policy is that all babies should be breastfed. If an ordinary doctor doesn't know much about breastfeeding, it's a good bet that he or she is not up to date on recent discoveries on adult nutrition either.

I'd like to clarify. I'm not anti-carb. There is a definite place for carbs in general nutrition, especially when it comes to high intensity athletes, but I do think the general population eats far too many refined carbs. Am I being very cynical when I notice that the high carb foods tend to be the really cheap-mass produced stuff that has a high profit margin? If everyone ate salmon and broccoli, there isn't much of a mark-up on that. If everyone ate a ready-made "pasta meal with salmon (15%) and broccoli (20%)" and the rest a mishmash of cheap pasta and various starches, salt and thickeners, there's a huge profit to be made.

absolutely people eat too many REFINED carbs, the problem is that most people are not educated enough about nutrition to know which carbs are bad and good ... Even switching from refined / high GI to wholegrain versions of bread / pasta / rice etc can yield good results and stop the energy boost / slump an hour later associated with while bread / pasta etc ...

El_Dangeroso

The energy slump is the tip of the iceberg unfortunately. Even if the digestion is slower, the mechanism of digestion remains the same, so grains are still damaging in the ways that ApeXaviour outlined whether they are wholegrain or not.

I eat potatoes in moderation (<100g a day roughly), they don't seem to have the same damaging effects of wheat.

Cows are designed to eat a high carb diet (grass), but when they are fed grain (wholegrain, natch) as their main foodstuff, they become very prone to illness and infection. Over 70% of the antibiotics in the U.S. market are consumed in commercial cattle production. So what is it likely to do to a digestive system accustomed to meat, fish, eggs and some seasonal fruit and root vegetables?

There is huge money granted to scientists in the business of proving wholegrains are a healthy and essential part of a good diet. A recent bout of complaints against a Nestle Ad which said 'Experts say you need 3 portions of wholegrains a day' were upheld as there was no proof this was the case. Those studies always compare high refined carb diets to wholegrains and of course wholegrains will come out looking great. They never include low carb in these tests as they know the data wouldn't go the way they wanted.