Low carb and Atkins bars

Gummy Panda

Hi guys,

just wondering what low carbers views on these. A lad in work who has been low carbing for ages, eats these now and again as a subsitute to say a snickers bar.

He says they are nice taste and low carb due to sugar alcohols but due to the sugar alcohols, if you eat a lot you'll have the runs.

I found avidlite.co.uk and am thinking of buying some of these or other alternatives. I know for a sweet treat a square of high coca chocolate is good but sometimes you want something different.

BTW, I started back low carbing after stopping a year ago. I didn't stop cause it was too hard in itself, just i went on stags with the lads and weddings, and found my food choices were extremely limited because i didn't prepare for these events properly. I had got back my carb cravings and piled on weight (more so from lifestyle choices and food selection rather then diet rebound).

After about a week of low carbing, I've loss a lot of bloated feeling and my energy levels seem better. Also a pair of jeans that were really tight on me have loosened up. Happy days!!

slicus ricus

Firstly, i'm not entirely sure what you mean by low carbing? I assume it has something to do with restricting the amount of carbs you eat per day. How few carbs are you talking about?

Secondly, i'm confused as to why you are looking to eat low carb bars? Why not just eat foods that are low in carbs?

I personally would be against the atkins methodology of more or less cutting carbs from your nutrition. A, you need carbs for energy - B, deficiency in carbs results in your body using proteins as a source of energy and protein is essential for growth and repair.

What is really worth looking at is the timing of your intake of carbs. I would generally eat a high carb meal prior to weight training to ensure that i have sufficient energy for training. Essentially what i'm suggesting is to eat carbs when your body needs them and will use them. Out of interest, how much exercise do you do in an average week? Obviously if you're doing exercise, carbs are needed for energy.

El_Dangeroso

slicus ricus wrote: »

Firstly, i'm not entirely sure what you mean by low carbing? I assume it has something to do with restricting the amount of carbs you eat per day. How few carbs are you talking about?

Secondly, i'm confused as to why you are looking to eat low carb bars? Why not just eat foods that are low in carbs?

I personally would be against the atkins methodology of more or less cutting carbs from your nutrition. A, you need carbs for energy - B, deficiency in carbs results in your body using proteins as a source of energy and protein is essential for growth and repair.

What is really worth looking at is the timing of your intake of carbs. I would generally eat a high carb meal prior to weight training to ensure that i have sufficient energy for training. Essentially what i'm suggesting is to eat carbs when your body needs them and will use them. Out of interest, how much exercise do you do in an average week? Obviously if you're doing exercise, carbs are needed for energy.

A - You need fat for energy, amongst about a thousand other metabolic functions
B - There is no such thing as a carbohydrate deficiency, it is true that parts of the body need glucose to function (the eyes), the body can manufacture glucose from dietary protein via gluconeogenesis. In the presence of sufficient fat and protein the body has no reason to cannibalise muscle. I think you're confusing Atkins with a High-protein low-fat diet like Stillman's. Atkins is High-fat.

In fact, low-fat low calorie diets reduce muscle mass where low carb preserves (if not increases) it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16469983&ordinalpos=37&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I am really tired of people who have never read a low carb book in their life spouting the same old myths.

Back to the OP, those frankenfoods are bad news, they are sweetened with maltitol, which is a polyol (a form of carbohydrate) that is unrecognisable to your digestive system, so that's where the laxative effects come from. It can disturb your digestive flora as well as causing a lot of people to stall.

You need to learn to eat real honest-to-god-made-from-one-ingrediant food or else you'll never stick with it long term and get all the health benefits.

slicus ricus

neddas wrote: »

A - You need fat for energy, amongst about a thousand other metabolic functions

I'm perfectly aware of the nutritional necessity of fats in the diet. I personally eat quite a lot of healthy fats. I don't know where you could have gotten the idea from my post that would indicate otherwise. Assumption perhaps?

neddas wrote: »

I think you're confusing Atkins with a High-protein low-fat diet like Stillman's. Atkins is High-fat.

I don't think so. Correct me if i'm wrong here but doesn't the atkins diet endorse/allow consumption of a lot of high cholesterol foods (rashers, sausages, etc) and didn't doctor Atkins die from a massive heart attack? As I said above, healthy fats are essential as part of a balanced diet. Fats that saturate can and should for the most part be done without.

neddas wrote: »

B - There is no such thing as a carbohydrate deficiency, it is true that parts of the body need glucose to function (the eyes), the body can manufacture glucose from dietary protein via gluconeogenesis. In the presence of sufficient fat and protein the body has no reason to cannibalise muscle. I think you're confusing Atkins with a High-protein low-fat diet like Stillman's. Atkins is High-fat.

I personally don't want my dietary protein intakes to be used for anything other than repair and growth; I certainly don't want it to be used to manufacture glucose and give me energy. Carbohydrates can do that for me.

Thats what i was referring to with the carb deficiency stuff - not enough carbs force your body to use protein for something other than its actual function.

neddas wrote: »

In fact, low-fat low calorie diets reduce muscle mass where low carb preserves (if not increases) it.

I'm not following you here at all. Why would anyone in their right mind have a low-fat low calorie diet if they're looking for muscle retention or increases? If you want to achieve muscle growth, you need a high protein diet with sufficient carbohydrates to give you energy to train (this is why carbohydrate timing is so important as i've prev mentioned) and function throughout the day. You also need healthy fats, fibre, vitamins, minerals etc. Essentially, you need a balanced diet except with a lot of protein for muscle repair and growth.

I think from the above, you can probably see that I would endorse a balanced diet rather than Atkins, Stillmans, etc. If you're clever about the levels of and timing of your carb intake and have exercise as a part of your life, you will not put on weight.

Gummy Panda

neddas wrote: »

Back to the OP, those frankenfoods are bad news, they are sweetened with maltitol, which is a polyol (a form of carbohydrate) that is unrecognisable to your digestive system, so that's where the laxative effects come from. It can disturb your digestive flora as well as causing a lot of people to stall.

You need to learn to eat real honest-to-god-made-from-one-ingrediant food or else you'll never stick with it long term and get all the health benefits.

Thanks for the advice. I think i'll stick to sugar-free jelly as a treat

slicus ricus

It's times like this I wonder why I bother contributing to these forums. I spend a considerable amount of time posting about the advantages of a balanced diet, carbohydrate timing, and exercise (a combination that i know for a fact works in the long run!) as a healthier alternative to fad diets such as the atkins diet; and apparently the preferred solution is sugar free jellies!:rolleyes: I give up!

ladiee24

slicus ricus wrote: »

It's times like this I wonder why I bother contributing to these forums. I spend a considerable amount of time posting about the advantages of a balanced diet, carbohydrate timing, and exercise (a combination that i know for a fact works in the long run!) as a healthier alternative to fad diets such as the atkins diet; and apparently the preferred solution is sugar free jellies!:rolleyes: I give up!

silcus ricus please do keep up your contribution to these forums i think the OP is referring to sugar free jelly as in the jelly you would have eaten as a child. not jellies as in sweets. it's recommended on the weight watchers system which i use to manage my eating.

Gummy Panda

slicus ricus wrote: »

It's times like this I wonder why I bother contributing to these forums. I spend a considerable amount of time posting about the advantages of a balanced diet, carbohydrate timing, and exercise (a combination that i know for a fact works in the long run!) as a healthier alternative to fad diets such as the atkins diet; and apparently the preferred solution is sugar free jellies!:rolleyes: I give up!

Sorry you got the impression i discarded your advice. I'm not going to live of sugar free jelly rather then meat and veg. Also i never asked for advice on diets but on these bars that contain sugar alcohols due to getting word of mouth recommendation. Though thanks for your input.

I was worried how my body would react to sugar alcohol.

I'm not following Atkins diet. There is other low carb diets like Protein Power which focus eating lean meat and fish with green veg. It also recommends nuts like almonds and increasing your water consumption. I was just curious on a suggestion i had received. Generally i don't eat treats/snacks much as I'm a smoker. It was just if i wanted something different then meat and veg that might taste a little sweet. Also I was referring to Jelly that you make and set yourself as this sweet treat not diabetic sweets you buy from boots. I think if you re-read my original post, I wasn't going to replace a meal with one of these bars.

MissFlitworth

slicus ricus wrote: »

Correct me if i'm wrong here but doesn't the atkins diet endorse/allow consumption of a lot of high cholesterol foods (rashers, sausages, etc) and didn't doctor Atkins die from a massive heart attack?

Nope. I'm no big fan of Atkins, but Dr. Atkins died after slipping and falling on ice and hitting his head. Massively overweight at the time of his death because he'd been in a coma for 2 weeks and was retaining huge amounts of fluids.

Dolbert

+1 This seems to be a common myth about how Atkins died. Also, it seems a lot of people confuse the strict two week induction phase with the actual diet.

slicus ricus

MissFlitworth wrote: »

Nope. I'm no big fan of Atkins, but Dr. Atkins died after slipping and falling on ice and hitting his head.

Appologies for my inaccuracy on that.

Gummy Panda wrote:

There is other low carb diets like Protein Power

I'm always wary of low carb diets for the reasons i've mentioned in my previous posts. If you eat carbs at appropriate times of the day and tailor your intake around activity levels, they can be very beneficial to your diet without causing increased bodyfat.

For example, yesterday evening, i went to the gym to train (started training at 8.30). I ate a bowl of mince with pasta and vegatables with some pesto sauce an hour and a half prior to training to ensure that i had sufficient energy. The result was that i was able to do weight training with at a reasonably high level of intensity for over 45mins. This evening, I will not be going to the gym so I ate a reasonably high in carbs lunch. I won't eat carbs this evening as my body does not need them and the carbs I ate today will have been converted into energy by the time I go to bed. What causes weight gain is excess carbs that you don't burn off

Aside from that, a breakfast with slow release complex carbs is always a good thing. Porridge is ideal as it gives you energy and is filling enough to prevent hunger for a while. Again, as it's early in the day, your body would burn it off.

Hmm, i've gone on quite a rant there; but i truely believe carbs can be very benefical nutritionally if consumed effectively!

Gummy Panda

slicus ricus wrote: »

I'm always wary of low carb diets for the reasons i've mentioned in my previous posts.
...
Hmm, i've gone on quite a rant there; but i truely believe carbs can be very benefical nutritionally if consumed effectively!

Thats fair enough and I see your points. Thanks for your advice.

Just to clear one thing up. I haven't removed carbs from my diet. Just lower the massive intake i had and replaced the source of my carbs with fresh veg.

EileenG

Personally, I think everyone could do with reducing the amount of refined and processed carbs in their diet. The nutritional value of things like sugar and biscuits and white bread and chips is non-existant. I'm all for eating carbs in the form of fresh unprocessed whole food. Most people don't eat anything like enough green vegetables, and the closest that they come to wholegrains is Cherrios.

Back to the original question: I don't like the Atkins bars except in case of emergency. I do like the Atkins diet (not a fad, it's stood the test of time and endless studies which find it is healthier and more effective than other diets being tested) but the bars and shakes are generally full of sugar alcohols and processed food.

If you want a snack at work, how about a handful of raw nuts or seeds? Low carb and healthy.

El_Dangeroso

slicus ricus wrote: »

It's times like this I wonder why I bother contributing to these forums. I spend a considerable amount of time posting about the advantages of a balanced diet, carbohydrate timing, and exercise (a combination that i know for a fact works in the long run!) as a healthier alternative to fad diets such as the atkins diet; and apparently the preferred solution is sugar free jellies!:rolleyes: I give up!

It's funny you call the Atkins diet a fad when it was accepted wisdom before the low fat 'fad' was invented 50 years ago. Low carb eating seemed to serve us well for 99% of the last few million years, but you know, you've read a few Men's Health magazines so I'm sure you know better. It seems sort of rude to rubbish something you clearly know so little about.

Can you back up your assertion that carbohydrate timing is healthier than Atkins with some scientific studies please?

Gummy Panda

EileenG wrote: »

If you want a snack at work, how about a handful of raw nuts or seeds? Low carb and healthy.

I'll probably bring a bag of almonds into work and leave them there so i can have a few throughout the day.

I was just asking about Atkin's bars in case i fancied something sweet but these sugar alcohols have put me right off.

Thanks for all the replies guys

slicus ricus

Eileen G wrote:

Personally, I think everyone could do with reducing the amount of refined and processed carbs in their diet. The nutritional value of things like sugar and biscuits and white bread and chips is non-existant. I'm all for eating carbs in the form of fresh unprocessed whole food.

I completely agree. Processed carbs are a waste of time, the less processed the better. Best sources of complex carbs would be brown rice, brown pasta, wholemeal bread, and oats. Best forms of simple carbs would be glucose and dextrose.

neddas wrote: »

It's funny you call the Atkins diet a fad when it was accepted wisdom before the low fat 'fad' was invented 50 years ago.

Of course the Atkins diet is a fad, it only became popular when Dr. Atkins published it and subsequently made a small fortune from doing so. Fair enough, the principles behind it were there in that people were aware that excessive amounts of unused carbs resulted in weight gain.

Balanced nutrition, however, involving sensible macronutrient timing where no Macronutrients are neglected would not fit the definition of a fad diet. In fact I wouldn't even regard it as a diet, I would regard it as making healthy nutrition part of your lifestyle!

I'm confused as to why you mention the low fat 'fad' in response to me? I agree with you that it is a fad! I believe that monounsaturated and poly-unsaturated fats fats are an absolute essential in nutrition. I thought I had made that clear in my post in this thread. I personally add a milled mix of pumpin seed, flax seed, sunflour seed and goji berries to my oats for breakfast. I also eat fish at least twice a week. Saturated and trans fats are not so essential and need to be watched in order to avoid high level of cholesterol. The Atkins diet promotes these unhealthier type fats in very high quantities.

neddas wrote: »

Low carb eating seemed to serve us well for 99% of the last few million years, but you know, you've read a few Men's Health magazines so I'm sure you know better. It seems sort of rude to rubbish something you clearly know so little about.

I've never read Mens Health, wouldn't have any interest in those type of publications personally. I know a substantial amount about nutrition and the various macronutrients and how they are applied to various diets, so i wouldn't be so quick to dismiss my knowledge.

neddas wrote: »

Can you back up your assertion that carbohydrate timing is healthier than Atkins with some scientific studies please?

I'm not a scientist or someone who studies scientific literature nor have I ever claimed to be. I am, however, someone who has taken a huge interest in weight training, nutrition and fitness over the past 6 years. I take my nutrition very very seriously and insist upon knowing what i am eating and why. I have learned a lot about nutrition from people I would regard worth listening to and have also learned a lot from trial and error. I know for a fact that I would struggle to make it through a day on 20g of carbs (as per the induction phase of Atkins), nevermind train!

At the end of the day, everyone has a choice, you can go on a carb restricting diet or you can choose a healthy lifestyle involving healthy nutrition, which you can structure to meet the demands of your lifestyle.

aare

Back to the OP.

I just got some stuff from avidlite.co.uk today...GREAT value if you know what you need...and despatched very fast...

The bars are, sadly, no use to me because of food sensitivities, but they are certainly a lot more use for nutrition at lunchtime, on the run, than a Mars bar...or a danish..

Avidlite sent me a few little sample sweets, and I have to say that if you have a remorselessly sweet tooth and don't need the sugar (whether through dieting, or diabetes) they were a nice little treat...

EileenG

Gummy Panda wrote: »

I was just asking about Atkin's bars in case i fancied something sweet but these sugar alcohols have put me right off.

Good idea. Sugar Alcohols will give you the smelliest farts you can imagine.

Interesting tidbit: on a good low carb diet, you'll find you almost never fart.

neuro-praxis

slicus ricus wrote: »

I won't eat carbs this evening as my body does not need them and the carbs I ate today will have been converted into energy by the time I go to bed. What causes weight gain is excess carbs that you don't burn off

For the most part I am in agreement with you but need to point out that it is excess calories that are not burnt off that cause weight gain - not excess carbs. A system for example like WeightWatchers proves that it is quite possible to live on processed food, white bread and sweets and still lose weight (although of course this is not what they recommend). Why? Because it's calories that matter in terms of weight gain or loss, not food-type.

(Cue someone saying "one slice of bread makes me gain two stone though". Well, whatever works for you.)

rubadub

neuro-praxis wrote: »

A system for example like WeightWatchers proves that it is quite possible to live on processed food, white bread and sweets and still lose weight (although of course this is not what they recommend). Why? Because it's calories that matter in terms of weight gain or loss, not food-type.

But the WW points system specifically singles out fatty foods as having higher points. http://points.ogo.ms/
Say I have a bag of nuts, they are around 600kcal per 100g, and 55% fat. Lets say it just says "fat" so I use the guideline "half the fat" rule, 27.5g. So 100g of nuts comes out at 15.5 points. Now if I had 600kcal of coke it is only 8.5 points!

So people on WW might unconsciously, or very consciously, be veering towards low fat foods. They might see it as the better of 2 options, even though the nuts would be far healthier than drinking a load of sugar. For the same points they can down nearly twice the calories as coke. (I know nuts are not half sat fat, so it exagerrates the point, but it just shows the point if packs did not show the sat fat)

Too much food will make you fat. Portion size is most people problems, WW & calorie counting try to address this. It is hopeful people will make better choices, "will I have 2-3 biscuits, or a chicken stir fry", same calories but I know which I go for.

I prefer calorie counting over WW points. WW trys to simplify things yet there is a whole thread of people trying to calculate points of foods where the calories are clearly on the packet. No estimates or "rounding", no misinformation off the web (i.e. brands ingredients change around the world). But my main point is the demonisation of fat in the calculation.

Of course many people have great success on WW and the idea is good, I just wonder if they will ever update the points system. It is a whole lot better than the other popular diets, like celebrity slim or lipotrim.

Calories are not perfect either, they are a measure of fuel for engineering purposes, not a measure for humans. Calories are meaured using combustion, not humans on treadmills or something. Alcohol has lots of calories but humans do not make as good use of them as a car would. 1000kcal of vodka will not make you as fat as 1000kcal of coke.

Most people on "low carb" diets are probably still eating more than enough carbs. I eat way less carbs than I used to, and much less than the average person, but I still probably eat far more than I need.

El_Dangeroso

slicus ricus wrote: »

I completely agree. Processed carbs are a waste of time, the less processed the better. Best sources of complex carbs would be brown rice, brown pasta, wholemeal bread, and oats. Best forms of simple carbs would be glucose and dextrose.

Er.. glucose and dextrose are the exact same thing btw, and by definition if your eating pure glucose, you're eating refined carbs. Also how does wholemeal bread escape the 'processed' definition?

slicus ricus wrote: »

Of course the Atkins diet is a fad, it only became popular when Dr. Atkins published it and subsequently made a small fortune from doing so. Fair enough, the principles behind it were there in that people were aware that excessive amounts of unused carbs resulted in weight gain.

Balanced nutrition, however, involving sensible macronutrient timing where no Macronutrients are neglected would not fit the definition of a fad diet. In fact I wouldn't even regard it as a diet, I would regard it as making healthy nutrition part of your lifestyle!

I think you'll find Atkins didn't invent low carb, paleolithic man did..I'm pretty sure they didn't have watches to time when they ate their carbohydrate either..because the only carbs that were edible were root veggies which are healthy.

Also, Atkins is a way of eating for life, if you'd read the book you'd probably know that.

slicus ricus wrote: »

I'm confused as to why you mention the low fat 'fad' in response to me? I agree with you that it is a fad! I believe that monounsaturated and poly-unsaturated fats fats are an absolute essential in nutrition. I thought I had made that clear in my post in this thread. I personally add a milled mix of pumpin seed, flax seed, sunflour seed and goji berries to my oats for breakfast. I also eat fish at least twice a week. Saturated and trans fats are not so essential and need to be watched in order to avoid high level of cholesterol. The Atkins diet promotes these unhealthier type fats in very high quantities.

You see, if you read some of the research in this area, you'd realise that some polyunsaturates are actually quite unhealthy, namely vegatable oils, we eat too much Omega 6 as a population, this leads to chronic inflammation which leads to heart disease.

Can you honestly tell me something that was invented less than a century ago and is produced by this process:

To get oil from corn, first the corn is separated from the cob, sorted and cleaned. The corn is then soaked in warm water that softens up the kernel so it can be easily broken apart. The strachy part of the kernel is separated from the germ. The germ goes on for some spinning down and rinsing which is designed to remove excess starch. From there, the oil is extracted and refined by mechanical (press/centrifugation) and chemical (solvent) extractions.

Than butter, which we have eaten for millenia and made by churning the cream of cows milk and maybe adding some salt?

Also, did you know Atkins was the one of the first people to identify the dangers of transfats? That's back in the 70's when nutritionists were still promoting them as part of a 'balanced diet'

slicus ricus wrote: »

I've never read Mens Health, wouldn't have any interest in those type of publications personally. I know a substantial amount about nutrition and the various macronutrients and how they are applied to various diets, so i wouldn't be so quick to dismiss my knowledge.

I'm not a scientist or someone who studies scientific literature nor have I ever claimed to be. I am, however, someone who has taken a huge interest in weight training, nutrition and fitness over the past 6 years. I take my nutrition very very seriously and insist upon knowing what i am eating and why. I have learned a lot about nutrition from people I would regard worth listening to and have also learned a lot from trial and error. I know for a fact that I would struggle to make it through a day on 20g of carbs (as per the induction phase of Atkins), nevermind train!

If you don't read scientific litarature, then how do you know anything you have studied is accurate? Have you ever tried eating 20g of carbs a day for two weeks? If not, how can you possibly have an informed opinion?

slicus ricus wrote: »

At the end of the day, everyone has a choice, you can go on a carb restricting diet or you can choose a healthy lifestyle involving healthy nutrition, which you can structure to meet the demands of your lifestyle.

Why is carb restriction and a healthy diet mutually exclusive? Can you provide me with any evidence whatsoever?

g'em

Aaaaaand everyone breathe

Slicus and neuro-praxis, you're both right - an excess of calories is what causes weight gain, but an excess of carbs makes you more likely to gain fat.

neddas - from the pov of someone who trains a lot (similar to slicus) I can see his rationale behind not wanting to go low carb [iirc he saw me do an 8 week low-calorie, sub 30g carb per day diet and while the results were incredible, I was a cranky mare for the entire duration ]. For our lifestyle, low carbing generally doesn't work - even on higher calorie, low-carb diets (like the anabolic diet or Paleo diet) I would tend to get lethargic and weak and can't train as long/ as intensively as I can with carbs.

You're right, there's quite a lot of mounting evidence that low-carb diets are very effective as a lifestyle choice for protecting against certain diseases and elements of ill-health. But much of the research is still in its infancy and we're still waiting for long-term studies to be conducted.

From what I can see you're both advocating balanced diets with plenty of green veg, lean protein and healthy fats. The only major difference is that slicus is also suggesting that carbs be eaten at appropriate times.

As for advocating what worked well in Paleolithic times or "99% of the last few million years", well, lets be honest, we CAN'T know what worked best because we don't know about mortality and health of our ancestors.

slicus ricus

Very well expressed as always g'em.

g'em wrote: »

iirc he saw me do an 8 week low-calorie, sub 30g carb per day diet and while the results were incredible, I was a cranky mare for the entire duration ].

I remember the cut well; from what i recall, the official TT title was "project g'em gets shredded":D. I still don't know how you managed to maintain that for 8 weeks while training hard as well - Impressive will power does not do it justice! To be fair to you though, you never took any of the low carb induced crankiness out on any of us.

g'em wrote: »

The only major difference is that slicus is also suggesting that carbs be eaten at appropriate times.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

El_Dangeroso

I appreciate the sentiment g'em but I don't advocate lean protein at all, I advocate fatty meat, otherwise it's not Atkins, it's stillmans..

Slicus Ricus stated many times that Atkins is unhealthy, a claim that couldn't be backed up despite repeated requests. I'm not rubbishing his approach, I can't as I haven't seen any scienctific studies to verify it's healthiness, never mind long-term studies, why are you so quick to accept that approach but low-carb 'needs more research'?

And believe it or not, we can tell a huge amount about health and diet from skeletal remains, including (but not limited to):

• Mortality. Archaeologists are able to judge a person's approximate age at death, and if the number of skeletons is large enough, they can paint a rough picture of the life expectancy and infant mortality of a population.
• General growth. Total height, bone thickness, dental crowding, and pelvic and skull shape are all indicators of relative nutrition and health. This is particularly true in a genetically stable population. Pelvic Depth is sensitive to nutrition and determines the size of the birth canal in women.
• Episodic stress. Bones and teeth carry markers of temporary "stress", most often due to starvation or malnutrition. Enamel hypoplasia, horizontal bands of thinned enamel on the teeth, is probably the most reliable marker. Harris lines, bands of increased density in long bones that may be caused by temporary growth arrest, are another type.
• Porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia. These are both skull deformities that are caused by iron deficiency anemia, and are rather creepy to look at. They're typically caused by malnutrition, but can also result from parasites.
• Periosteal reactions. These are bone lesions resulting from infections.
• Physical trauma, such as fractures.
• Degenerative bone conditions, such as arthritis.
• Isotopes and trace elements. These can sometimes yield information about the nutritional status, diet composition and diet quality of populations.
• Dental pathology. My favorite! This category includes cavities, periodontal disease, missing teeth, abscesses, tooth wear, and excessive dental plaque.

So what do the skelatans of Paleolithic times tell us?

In Upper Paleolithic times nutritional health was excellent. The evidence consists of extremely tall stature from plentiful calories and protein (and some microevolutionary selection?); maximum skull base height from plentiful protein, vitamin D, and sunlight in early childhood; and very good teeth and large pelvic depth from adequate protein and vitamins in later childhood and adolescence...
Adult longevity, at 35 years for males and 30 years for females, implies fair to good general health...
There is no clear evidence for any endemic disease.

And what happens when you introduce agriculture and ensuing increase in starch..

At this stage in all regions the incidence of physiological stress increases greatly, and average mortality rates increase appreciably. Most of these agricultural populations have high frequencies of porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia, and there is a substantial increase in the number and severity of enamel hypoplasias and pathologies associated with infectious disease. Stature in many populations appears to have been considerably lower than would be expected if genetically-determined maxima had been reached, which suggests that the growth arrests documented by pathologies were causing stunting... Incidence of carbohydrate-related tooth disease increases, apparently because subsistence by this time is characterized by a heavy emphasis on a few starchy food crops.

From the book Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture, edited by Drs. Mark Nathan Cohen and George J. Armelagos

This was before the invention of 'white' carbs btw

If you were cranky while on the low carb plan, either you weren't eating enough saturated fat or you were trying to make your body fat go too low.

I know people who run marathons on low carb, and they run it better because 'the wall' doesn't exist when you can seemlessly switch from dietary to body fat. But it's not good debating to induce one example as the norm, I'm not saying everyone can do it, but it disproves the assertion that if your training heavy you 'need' starch or sugar.

I'm sorry but you can't tell me high-fat low carb diets are unhealthy because there's not a shred of evidence to support that position, despite all the media scaremongering.

aare

Can I just add, as a footnote, that we also know the obvious.

Paleolithic Man was, likely, just as fond of his convenience foods as we are.

He hunted, he gathered, he ate.

Meat is great, but not exactly convenient, so, chances are, he ate whatever was convenient while he was waiting.

Most greens and fruits can be picked and eaten uncooked (handy snacks), but roots mean digging them up, and THEN finding a way to cook them, at length, and, I am betting, that being the case, if he had to go to all that trouble anyway, Paleolithic Man, like me, would rather have a nice bit of meat.

Also, depending on where he lived, Paleolithic Man may very well have had limited to no access to fruits and greens AT ALL during winter. Which may have either meant that he lived on a diet of, mostly meat, or that he DID go to the trouble of finding, and storing root vegetables...

...and "carb loading" for an extra layer of fat to get him through the winter months...

I am carb intolerant...any complex carbs make me feel "nasty" all over (odema, stomach upset...kinda like a variation on a theme by PMS ) but, on the other hand, though it seems a, perfectly safe, effective and relatively painless way to lose unhealthy weight, I am not sure we are designed to live our whole lives in ketosis.

El_Dangeroso

aare wrote: »

I am carb intolerant...any complex carbs make me feel "nasty" all over (odema, stomach upset...kinda like a variation on a theme by PMS ) but, on the other hand, though it seems a, perfectly safe, effective and relatively painless way to lose unhealthy weight, I am not sure we are designed to live our whole lives in ketosis.

I agree aare, but if you long term low carb with no cheating, you stop producing ketones and just utilise the free fatty acids in your bloodstream directly. You don't have that weird metallic taste forever!

aare

neddas wrote: »

I agree aare, but if you long term low carb with no cheating, you stop producing ketones and just utilise the free fatty acids in your bloodstream directly. You don't have that weird metallic taste forever!

What "weird metallic taste"? Haven't had anything like THAT since 2006!

(And even THEN it wasn't too bad...yup, I have spent most of the time since 2003 low carbing one way or another and some of it, DEFINATELY in ketosis. )

But, apart from melodramatic levels of constipation at times, I have some serious poo problems (usually when there is extra sugar, salt or alcohol in the mix):

Pale yellow and copius
Liquid, uncontrollable and smelling strongly of acetone (NO WAY is that right)

All my bloodwork (February) is consistently clear (no diabetes) so that tends to suggest that my liver is not as happy as it could be.

I have finally stopped gaining, and started losing weight by using a combination of lipotrim TFR (I have a load left, waste not, want not, but to my mind the carbs are a bit high, 15g each), other brand protein shakes (less than 2g carb each), eggs, huge portions of cabbage (with butter), celery and meat ("reduced for quick sale" in Tesco and Dunnes rather than specifically fat or lean ).

The final problem to be conquered was probably a combination of too much cheese, too much processed ham and too many carbs (55g) in the nice, gluten free Tesco diet shakes that I have been stockpiling from Ulster to get a bit of ould nutrition into me, first thing, without upsetting my food sensitivities (or spending 10x as much on, equally gluten free, Lipotrim, there WAS no "third option" over the counter)

When I have got to my target weight I am hoping to introduce honey (which seems to agree with me remarkably well, I just don't lose weight) and finish off those Tesco diet shakes for brekfast or treats (I LIKE them)...and if I can stabilise that way, I am going to take it from there. I would like to be able to eat fruit again...and roast parsnips.

But we shall see...I doubt if I will ever be able to eat normal food again without constant weight gain...but let's hope I can stop being the "vampire at the table" whenever I eat out of home.

BTW, I am kinda OLD, as in "menopausal"...and that has to be a factor...

g'em

neddas wrote: »

why are you so quick to accept that approach but low-carb 'needs more research'?

I'm "accepting" what works for me. ALL areas of nutrition need more research and will continue to needc more research as long as our food preparation, consumption and production continues to develop and grow.

neddas wrote:

If you were cranky while on the low carb plan, either you weren't eating enough saturated fat or you were trying to make your body fat go too low.

50% of my daily calories were coming from fats from a variety of sources, sat fats included. And yes, the low calories played a part, but having tried low-carbing with a calorie surplus also, it invokes the same response. Why are you so adamant that I can't know my own body and how it reacts?

neddas wrote:

I know people who run marathons on low carb, and they run it better because 'the wall' doesn't exist when you can seemlessly switch from dietary to body fat. But it's not good debating to induce one example as the norm, I'm not saying everyone can do it, but it disproves the assertion that if your training heavy you 'need' starch or sugar.

LOL marathon runners and Olympic weightlifters are as different as cats and elephants. When I say 'heavy' I don't just mean in volume, I mean in weight. With a low-carb diet I suffer from overtraining quicker, I have reduced energy levels, my CNS gets destroyed, I recover slower... this is MY experience.

neddas wrote:

I'm sorry but you can't tell me high-fat low carb diets are unhealthy because there's not a shred of evidence to support that position, despite all the media scaremongering.

I certainly didn't say they're unhealthy - what I am saying is that eating carbohydrates in your diet (the right ones, at the right time) is NOT going to send you to an early grave (and to suggest otherwise really is scaremongering).

aare

g'em wrote: »

I'm "accepting" what works for me.

...and I totally support you in that, and furthermore, I am happy to take your word for it that a low carb diet makes you uncomfortable, and does not work for you...

...my only problem has always been with the assumption that what works for you will just as well for everybody else...and if they say it doesn't that is because they are cheating or not doing it properly.

That is EXACTLY the same as someone trying to insist that the only reason low carb did not work for you is because you were cheating or not doing it properly.

g'em wrote: »

50% of my daily calories were coming from fats from a variety of sources, sat fats included. And yes, the low calories played a part, but having tried low-carbing with a calorie surplus also, it invokes the same response. Why are you so adamant that I can't know my own body and how it reacts?

I can remember having to say EXACTLY the same thing to you in almost the same words in the past...I am sure those threads are still around too.

g'em wrote: »

LOL marathon runners and Olympic weightlifters are as different as cats and elephants. When I say 'heavy' I don't just mean in volume, I mean in weight. With a low-carb diet I suffer from overtraining quicker, I have reduced energy levels, my CNS gets destroyed, I recover slower... this is MY experience.

I believe you, and as a result hope to heavens you stay away from low carb in future.

g'em wrote: »

I certainly didn't say they're unhealthy - what I am saying is that eating carbohydrates in your diet (the right ones, at the right time) is NOT going to send you to an early grave (and to suggest otherwise really is scaremongering).

...and the same goes for suggesting that low cal and/or low carb weightloss is going to send anybody else into an early grave.

I am personally delighted to see someone, who so obviously REALLY knows their stuff, post an alternative perspective on diet here. That is going to be so helpful for people like me that your way just does not work for.

g'em

aare you do whatever works for you. Be a grown up though and put the veiled insults to one side. Given that you accused me of being a bully not so long ago your presence here is on nano-thin ice as it is.

aare

g'em wrote: »

aare you do whatever works for you. Be a grown up though and put the veiled insults to one side. Given that you accused me of being a bully not so long ago your presence here is on nano-thin ice as it is.

G'em,

I think you are just projecting...and I know that I would never accuse anyone of "being a bully" unless I am certain that is EXACTLY what they were doing...

So you go ahead, show how "grown up" you are by banning me for pointing out that what you are complaining about is only the same thing you regularly dish out to others, and a much milder version at that...

I am sure I will somehow find a way to survive. :rolleyes:

But I am DELIGHTED to see someone, like Neddas, making informed posts, from an alternative perspective to yours.

Because it is a very simple fact, that what works for you DOES NOT work for everyone, whether you like it or not.

g'em

If quoting you is projecting then so be it. You decided to get personal on this thread so I'm simply responding in kind. I won't ban you unless you deserve it. You and I both know that you sent me a very, very unpleasant and unprovoked PM and that tells me all I need to know about your character.

I totally accept that what works for me won't work for others. Where difficulty arises with your particular case is simply that you seem to defy the laws of simple biology and I really don't want to argue that any more. You've found what suits you, best of luck with it.

aare

g'em wrote: »

Where difficulty arises with your particular case is simply that you seem to defy the laws of simple biology.

Only "the laws of simple biology" around here...I fit everything Neddas is saying perfectly...and so do a lot of other people...the difference between us is that I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM believing that what works for me, and others, doesn't work for you.

I take your word for it because I cannot IMAGINE any reason why you would try it and then lie, so, obviously, our bodies work differently.

It would be great, truly, if there WAS a "one size fits all" answer to nutrition (and just about anything else you can think of), but there obviously isn't, and trying to insist that every fact that challenges what, undeniably, works for you, is "cheating", "not doing it properly" or even "defying the laws of simple biology", will not change that.

You can ban me if you like, you hate my guts and I am not exactly your number one fan either, so it actually *is* a bit ridiculous for me to post here, like a red rag to a bull...but whether you do or not, please give some serious consideration to opening your mind and accepting that there is no "one true way" and that people need different answers, not just *your* answers...Neddas seems to have some of those different answers at her fingertips.

There really isn't a lot of point in me saying any more than that.

Think it over, I won't be back for ages either way.