OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Drowsy Dancer wrote:

-SWS wrote: <snip>Enter the USDA recommended food pyramid. It clearly doesn't work for many people. Scientists advocating primal dieting suspect the food pyramid, high on carbohydrates and low on fat, fails the very design/evolution of human metabolism. These objecting scientists in particular think the USDA recommended food pyramid is flat-out wrong. And they might be right.

If the USDA food pyramid is wrong, that alone doesn't make it bad science.<snip>

This may be one reason that the USDA replaced the food pyramid last year with something called My Plate:http://www.choosemyplate.gov/index.html. Although the same criticisms may be valid, going after the food pyramid at this point seems like a straw man argument.

Well, if you're referring to my posts as straw argumentation, I think you have misidentified one neophyte's recapping of a book and even school-of-thought as argumentation. I'm still trying to decide where my opinion stands in all of this. But if you're referring that same point having been repeatedly made by the Taubes camp, the point was not straw argumentation when they extended their arguments. That many people---perhaps most---who have the food pyramid embedded in their consciousness have probably never even HEARD of My Plate, probably makes their argument just as germane today. My take is their argument is about diametrically opposed nutritional advice---not government-campaign name changes.

Then I also suspect advocates of low-carb, high-fat diets will point out that My Plate is a minimally updated version of the USDA Food Pyramid. It's still a comparatively high-carb, low-fat diet, which is precisely what they argue against. Call it Food Pyramid or call it My Plate. Call it a slightly modified rose by any other name. At the end of the day, Food-Pyramid/My-Plate shapes up as the philosophical, nutritional, and even political opposite of the USDA's past and present diet recommendations IMO.

Those carbohydrate grains in the USDA recommended Food-Pyramid/My-Plate just so happen to come from that A-word in the sociopolitical acronym USDA...

-SWS wrote:

Drowsy Dancer wrote:

-SWS wrote: <snip>Enter the USDA recommended food pyramid. It clearly doesn't work for many people. Scientists advocating primal dieting suspect the food pyramid, high on carbohydrates and low on fat, fails the very design/evolution of human metabolism. These objecting scientists in particular think the USDA recommended food pyramid is flat-out wrong. And they might be right.

If the USDA food pyramid is wrong, that alone doesn't make it bad science.<snip>

This may be one reason that the USDA replaced the food pyramid last year with something called My Plate:http://www.choosemyplate.gov/index.html. Although the same criticisms may be valid, going after the food pyramid at this point seems like a straw man argument.

Well, if you're referring to my posts as straw argumentation, I think you have misidentified one neophyte's recapping of a book as argumentation. But if you're referring that same point having been repeatedly made by the Taubes camp, the point was not straw argumentation when they extended their arguments. That many people---perhaps most---who have the food pyramid embedded in their consciousness and have never HEARD of My Plate probably make the argument just as germaine today.

Then I also suspect advocates of low-carb, high-fat diets will point out that My Plate is a minimally updated version of the USDA Food Pyramid. It's still a comparatively high-carb, low-fat diet, which is precisely what they argue against. Call it Food Pyramid or call it My Plate. Call it a slightly modified rose by any other name. At the end of the day, Food-Pyramid/My-Plate shapes up as the philosophical, nutritional, and even political opposite of the USDA's past and present diet recommendations IMO.

Those carbohydrate grains in the USDA recommended Food-Pyramid/My-Plate just so happen to come from that A-word in the sociopolitical acronym USDA...

Actually, I am fairly agnostic--perhaps a better word would be confused--about the various philosophies of food described on this thread, and don't have a dog in the hunt, so to speak. And I wasn't addressing ANY of your posts but the one I commented on. I just think arguments about the USDA's recommendations are more effective when they address the USDA's actual recommendations.

FWIW, my take on My Plate is that actually represents a shift in emphasis to fruits and vegetables (also produced by the A-word, by the way), because half the plate is occupied by them. For all I know there was a big scuffle between the grain farmers and the broccoli farmers behind the scenes. This is consistent with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which I have read in its entirety. Better than melatonin.

Fruits and vegetables are composed of carbohydrates, too, of course. In eating discourse the word "carbs" seems to have become a term of art that means "not the kind of carbs that are in vegetables other than potatoes and corn."

PS: I don't understand this sentence at all: "At the end of the day, Food-Pyramid/My-Plate shapes up as the philosophical, nutritional, and even political opposite of the USDA's past and present diet recommendations IMO. " My Plate is the USDA's present diet recommendations--why do you say it is the opposite of the recommendations?

DD, do you happen to have a link to that Japanese spinning top?

I recently decided to spin the French Paradox top. We now have three cases of red wine in our basement. Now there's a fun diet...

-SWS wrote:DD, do you happen to have a link to that Japanese spinning top?

I recently decided to spin the French Paradox top. We now have three cases of red wine in our basement. Now there's a fun diet...

Try this one (English captions): http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/kenkou/pdf/ ... okuji5.pdf

For extra fun: Comparison of international food guide pictorial representations: http://intraspec.ca/pictorials_nutrition_guides.pdf

For extra credit see: http://www.eufic.org/article/en/expid/f ... in-europe/

Drowsy Dancer wrote: I don't understand this sentence at all: "At the end of the day, Food-Pyramid/My-Plate shapes up as the philosophical, nutritional, and even political opposite of the USDA's past and present diet recommendations IMO. " My Plate is the USDA's present diet recommendations--why do you say it is the opposite of the recommendations?

I meant to say low-carb, high-fat diets shape up as the philosophical, nutritional, and even political opposite of the USDA's past and present diet recommendations. My take is the Taubes school-of-thought rejects the USDA recommendations as containing not enough fat and too much sugar & carbs. I believe these are two diamterically opposed schools of nutritional thought.

Thanks for the links.

Interesting stuff to keep in mind (?) :

Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr 2003;12 (4): 396-404
Review Article: Low-carbohydrate diets: what are the potential short and long-term health implications?
Shane A Bilsborough MSc (Nutrition) and Timothy C Crowe PhD
School of Health Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia

. . . Complications such as heart arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities can all be linked to long-term restriction of carbohydrates in the diet. . . . Typically, low-carbohydrate diets are low in fibre, thiamin, folate, vitamins A, E, and B6, calcium, magnesium, iron, and potassium. . . .

. . . One of the main rationales promoted by advocates of low-carbohydrate diets is that insulin secretion, in response to carbohydrate ingestion, is the cause of the metabolic imbalance that promotes obesity. . . . While such a situation is true in theory it is in fact overly simplistic and the actual reality is much more complex. . . . To focus on one particular metabolic response . . . presents a very unbalanced view of the complex metabolic changes leading to obesity. What is overlooked in the simple metabolic situation promoted by proponents of low-carbohydrate diets is that dietary amino acids are also able to stimulate insulin secretion without augmenting glucose concentrations. Investigations examining the insulin response to whole foods showed that protein foods such as meat and fish elicited a greater peak insulin concentration than white pasta. . . .

. . . Long-term compliance to a low-carbohydrate [diet] may put an individual at greater risk of an array of metabolic diseases . . . Advice should be given to an individual following a low-carbohydrate diet to help avoid some of the potential metabolic consequences known to be associated with this diet. For example, advice would include: to increase the intake of water to help prevent dehydration; ensure an adequate intake of fibre from non-starch containing foods; and to consume an adequate amount of calcium either from the consumption of low-fat dairy products, canned fish with bones or from the use of supplements. The use of a general multivitamin formulation would also seem prudent in light of the array of vitamin and mineral deficiencies that may potentially exist. Certainly those with a history of heart problems should be strongly dissuaded from restricting carbohydrates whilst undertaking vigorous exercise due to potential cardiac abnormalities associated with ketogenic diets. . . .

http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30008 ... s-2003.pdf

Nope, look at it again. http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/jimm ... eads/10900

He listed all the nutritional information including the weight of each slice. Then he plotted his blood sugar profile after eating each slice of bread.

His conclusions were:

* All four of the breads responded with a blood sugar spike within 30 minutes
* All four of the breads elicited a reactive hypoglycemic response
* The biggest drop in blood sugar happened with SmartCarb #1 bread
* The egg experiment showed very little change in blood sugar
* White bread predictably raised blood sugar the most; SmartCarb #2 was second highest
* The whole grain bread surprisingly didn’t raise blood sugar above 114
* High levels of fiber in SmartCarb breads did not prevent unstable blood sugars
* SmartCarb breads and eggs had similar net carbs but radically different results
* The white bread made me hungry while I was still in the 3-hour testing period
* I gained 5 pounds on the scale over the course of conducting this experiment

It makes one wonder whether 1 or 2 "net" carbs is really the same as 1 or 2 total carbs without fiber. In Jimmy's case, the difference was very minor, and the whole grain bread was actually better than any of the "low carb" breads. But that's just an n=1 test, of course.

jnk wrote:Interesting stuff to keep in mind (?) :

Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr 2003;12 (4): 396-404
Review Article: Low-carbohydrate diets: what are the potential short and long-term health implications?
Shane A Bilsborough MSc (Nutrition) and Timothy C Crowe PhD
School of Health Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia

. . . Complications such as heart arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities can all be linked to long-term restriction of carbohydrates in the diet. . . . Typically, low-carbohydrate diets are low in fibre, thiamin, folate, vitamins A, E, and B6, calcium, magnesium, iron, and potassium. . . .

. . . One of the main rationales promoted by advocates of low-carbohydrate diets is that insulin secretion, in response to carbohydrate ingestion, is the cause of the metabolic imbalance that promotes obesity. . . . While such a situation is true in theory it is in fact overly simplistic and the actual reality is much more complex. . . . To focus on one particular metabolic response . . . presents a very unbalanced view of the complex metabolic changes leading to obesity. What is overlooked in the simple metabolic situation promoted by proponents of low-carbohydrate diets is that dietary amino acids are also able to stimulate insulin secretion without augmenting glucose concentrations. Investigations examining the insulin response to whole foods showed that protein foods such as meat and fish elicited a greater peak insulin concentration than white pasta. . . .

. . . Long-term compliance to a low-carbohydrate [diet] may put an individual at greater risk of an array of metabolic diseases . . . Advice should be given to an individual following a low-carbohydrate diet to help avoid some of the potential metabolic consequences known to be associated with this diet. For example, advice would include: to increase the intake of water to help prevent dehydration; ensure an adequate intake of fibre from non-starch containing foods; and to consume an adequate amount of calcium either from the consumption of low-fat dairy products, canned fish with bones or from the use of supplements. The use of a general multivitamin formulation would also seem prudent in light of the array of vitamin and mineral deficiencies that may potentially exist. Certainly those with a history of heart problems should be strongly dissuaded from restricting carbohydrates whilst undertaking vigorous exercise due to potential cardiac abnormalities associated with ketogenic diets. . . .

http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30008 ... s-2003.pdf

. . . Complications such as heart arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities can all be linked to long-term restriction of carbohydrates in the diet. . . . Typically, low-carbohydrate diets are low in fibre, thiamin, folate, vitamins A, E, and B6, calcium, magnesium, iron, and potassium. . . .

Funny thing is if you READ say Atkin's Diet Revolution he talks a LOT about fiber and how to add it as much as possible to help counter carbs so this statement strikes me as one more study were they focus on what they want and twist it to how they want to see things. He also talks a lot about making adjustments and supplements as well as the need to be checked regularly to see what might be needed, so don't you find yourself lacking in vitamins or other areas and warns you of what areas and what to look for. He also says to regularly consult with your Doctor and warns about the risk factors, but also counters a lot of the CAN BE linking.

People erroneously think that the first stage of the Atkin's Diet is the main focus and to run in that stage forever. They all seem to look at the first stage of the diet and stop reading. He even warns people not to stay in Stage One for too long unless Super Obese and insulin resistant, and even then that it should be monitored closely. The thing about the core of the Atkin's Diet is that it is meant in large part to be a "clinical" diet that is closely monitored and then progresses past the first stage. In these studies I wonder if they do them the right way. By lumping in All the different low carb diets in as the SAME I highly doubt they are. In order to say test the Atkins diet one would have to get a group of people together and allow them to progress as they needed, IE to get through Stage one properly and two weeks is just a ball park in the book it can be longer depending on the individual needs. Then the other stages to find each individual's daily carb needs to maintain a healthy level of weight loss( not just water loss) and then finally learn what level of daily carb intake they can handle to keep the weight stable. Then once they have done ALL this and gotten the group to their individual target weight, monitor the group long term for over all compliance and health. Find me a study with the Data Logs on that oh wait you can't because when they do this testing they say Unlimited Meat, high fat, low carb and then run with it as pointed out by Taubes I believe. Also Atkins warns about over doing it on the MEAT as it can be converted and oh ya spike your insulin levels.

I think that by trying to get the word out Atkins "FAILED" in distilling it enough for the general population, and again "FAILED" by not making more clinical enough for the Scientific/Medical community he really should have done 2 books I think, focused at each group. Also one needs to keep in mind the data when the book was published(no I have not read the updated book since his death). He also stated in the book that the Atkin's Approach or "Diet" was still a work in progress depending on studies being done at the time and studies to come IF the Scientific Community would start to at LEAST look at Carbs, Fats, Sugars, and Proteins more closely then just to say cut fat, eat less, and workout more. In this part I think he was successful as most of the low carb diets I have read and seen since are at it's core a form of Atkin's as well as getting people to rethink the way we have been doing things.

When I was preping for Gastric Bypass and planning on doing the RNY you know what I found funny in the prep work? The Atkins diet THEY tell you to go on a month or two before the surgery to induce Ketosis and the goal of this is to put the liver on a diet so they can more easily move it around when they go in Lapriscopicly. They do not call it an Atkin's of course but when I read the pre-op Diet it was Atkins at it's Stage One base. It almost looked like it was taken right out of the Atkin's Food lists for Stage One.

I do NOT believe Atkins is the single complete solution but I do think the method and a lot of the approach is right on and needs long term unbiased testing with tweaking based on sound Scientific study and METHODOLOGY. I will continue digging into the references of the posted article but I am not a Taubes.

I think Atkins was well aware of the possible dangers of severe restriction of carbs, and I think, in my opinion, that he acted very responsibly in pointing them out, according to his understanding.

But I also believe that the adoption of any unproven approach long-term can have unintended consequences. Any food to an excess has the potential to damage health, and cutting out any food group for an extended period of time can do damage, I would assume.

I applaud all discussions about balancing intake of nutrients. But I choose to be cautious about recommendations to restrict intake of certain types of calories long-term.

As for carbs, I agree that Twinkies can kill, but I will not burn down grocery stores to protect the public from them. There are plenty of unhealthy foods under the protein category, plenty under the fat category, or plenty under the carb category. But there are plenty of good foods under each category, as well, IMO.

If someone is unintentionally carb-loading with no marathon in sight, I agree he or she should cut down on carbs so as not to take in an excess. I just don't think that the abusive eating habits of those who do eat a lot of bad carbs is a justification for labeling carbs as a whole as something that every human being needs to cut back on indiscriminately. And unfortunately, that unintended message seems to be coming across to some--load up on hot dogs and sausage so you can skip the nutritious whole grains for the rest of your life.

But that is always the problem with oversimplifying any complicated life process like eating. Everyone knows a lot of us aren't doing it right, but there is little consensus on how to get more people to make better choices and even less agreement on across-the-board recommendations that work for improving long-term health outcomes for the majority.

In my opinion, of course.

jnk wrote:I think Atkins was well aware of the possible dangers of severe restriction of carbs, and I think, in my opinion, that he acted very responsibly in pointing them out, according to his understanding.

But I also believe that the adoption of any unproven approach long-term can have unintended consequences. Any food to an excess has the potential to damage health, and cutting out any food group for an extended period of time can do damage, I would assume.

I applaud all discussions about balancing intake of nutrients. But I choose to be cautious about recommendations to restrict intake of certain types of calories long-term.

As for carbs, I agree that Twinkies can kill, but I will not burn down grocery stores to protect the public from them. There are plenty of unhealthy foods under the protein category, plenty under the fat category, or plenty under the carb category. But there are plenty of good foods under each category, as well, IMO.

If someone is unintentionally carb-loading with no marathon in sight, I agree he or she should cut down on carbs so as not to take in an excess. I just don't think that the abusive eating habits of those who do eat a lot of bad carbs is a justification for labeling carbs as a whole as something that every human being needs to cut back on indiscriminately. And unfortunately, that unintended message seems to be coming across to some--load up on hot dogs and sausage so you can skip the nutritious whole grains for the rest of your life.

But that is always the problem with oversimplifying any complicated life process like eating. Everyone knows a lot of us aren't doing it right, but there is little consensus on how to get more people to make better choices and even less agreement on across-the-board recommendations that work for improving long-term health outcomes for the majority.

In my opinion, of course.

Oh, I whole heartedly agree with you. I do not think everyone is the same and that general rules of CARBS are Da Debil (Waterboy ) is correct. Nor do I think Calories in - Calories out = fat or not fat. Nor do I think at this point that FAT is evil.

I do think however that each person has their own carb needs and tolerances and that if done properly the Atkins Approach can help you find that. I also think finding out how your body reacts to each piece of food you eat might be needed for some. IE me at this point.

So far to me anyway it seems as though everyone is looking for a blanket solution when in fact the solution is very individualized. For an analogy I see the way this is going kinda like computer techs.

You have the Tech that just pops in a hardware diagnostic CD with a general Dos based Anti Virus software on it and boots the computer and if no issues are found, send it out the door. (Most Doctors and normally the client/computer comes back)

Then you have the Tech who will actively question the client after running the CD and digs deeper until finding out if its a driver issue, firmware issue, configuration issue, hardware conflict, software conflict, OS incompatibility, Power Issue, or any other issue you care to list. ( Good Doctor, that might actually fix/cure someone)

I personally think that Super Obesity needs intensive individual based care, while people who are simply "over weight" by say 10 - 50 pounds can be handled with generalized solutions. As far as the food supply goes I do think there is a lot to the theory that some of the things we use in our foods and the reasons we do it aren't good for people in general. DO we really need this much salt and sugar in every product we buy?

As far as unproven approach goes if at some point you find a problem that you can not fix with a "proven" or assumed to be "proven" approach you just might have to try something different to find said solution and of course it risks being wrong.

Stepping away from the science (or psuedo-science) for a moment here, I think that one reason people who have never tried a low carb diet are so aghast is that they believe that LC and Paleo adherents eat nothing but meat and fat. There are a few who do (and who seem none the worse for it, BTW), but most of us do not.

Of course we eat carbs, but very limited carbs in the form of non-starchy vegetables, and small occasional portions of starchier veggies and low glycemic fruit. Personally I eat a huge variety of vegetables every day--we're fortunate that my DH's employer owns an organic farm and we get a great discount on the produce and grass fed beef sold there. We eat grass fed beef, free range chicken, whole dairy from local sources (not raw), eggs from free range chickens (and I've even gone to visit them!). I take a few supplements--fish oil and magnesium. There's plenty of fiber and vitamins in the natural, whole foods I eat. Plus, I eat my veggies with fat (butter!) so that I can absorb the ADEK vitamins in them.

I have simply cut most starch, allsugar, and grains from my diet. And I eat healthy, whole foods. Where's the danger in that???? Surely this is better than 99% of people who eat the SAD, and far better than the McDougall vegan I met last weekend who subsists on very little protein and no fat, but plenty of starches and grains. She looks gaunt, not healthy.

Here's one more link describing the USDA Food Pyramid's evolution into the new "My Plate" discussed earlier:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionso ... index.html

That article gives both rationale and criticism for the changes. But they also offer their own similar-sounding "Healthy Plate" alternatives. Nutrition is clearly a science with myriad opinions.

Janknitz wrote: Surely this is better than 99% of people who eat the SAD

If you're comparing your diet against the Standard American (junkfood) Diet, then I think you're right. I'm such a neophyte I had to look up SAD:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=p ... 22&bih=656

I have a question for the low-carb dieters. What were your biggest barriers to starting up a low-carb diet? Fear of fats? Not wanting to give up sweets? A generalized fear of side effects? Fear of giving up favorite restaurants?

-SWS wrote: I have a question for the low-carb dieters. What were your biggest barriers to starting up a low-carb diet? Fear of fats? Not wanting to give up sweets? A generalized fear of side effects? Fear of giving up favorite restaurants?

Initially it was giving up bread. I love bread in all its forms plus I was living in an area where there were lots of French traditional artisanat bakers. The first time I switched I was working where they had a salad bar lunch available so the switch was easier then later. It also helped that the food at the salad bar was cheaper and tastier then regular fare (provided by the same people who catered to the airplanes...). It worked well.
Then I lost my job and things went downhill from there.
Right now I am the cook for my parents who at 80+ are not interested in anything different so I have to cook and bake for them. If the stuff is not the house I have no problems but with it constantly under my nose I can't resist it.