Re: Re: are vegetables healthy?

March 3, 2009

Connie,

> I felt awful on

> Atkins " induction " too and never stuck it out. Also a fair amount of

> Irish and German ethicity, and I do well on non-ketogenic low carb.

I wonder about the Atkins " induction " folks. Not to say you did it

this way but from what I have seen of the way many people have tried

" induction " with al the funky fats, lean meats, and other

questiionable (though low carb) food. Its no wonder they feel as bad

as they do.

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

March 3, 2009

,

> well this might explain why i have been feeling under the weather in the

> last week or so...the first time in i don't know how long! i haven't been

> sick in ages! i went from eating high fat, moderate protein--mostly meats,

> and low carbs--just potatoes, very little fruit, to eating that plus some

> vegetables and more fruits and sugar in things like ice cream and commercial

> apple sauce. but i am pregnant and i guess i feel obligated plus for

> whatever reason i am craving more sweet and carby.

Why do you feel obligated to eat ice cream with sugar and commercial applesauce?

> i have even eaten rice

> pasta more in the last 2 weeks than i have in 3 years! i don't know why i am

> finding it difficult to eat this pregnancy.

Why does your starch have to be in the form of pasta (and I imagine

store bought improperly prepared pasta at that)?

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

March 3, 2009

Why do you feel obligated to eat ice cream with sugar and commercial

applesauce?

michael, sorry i meant i sometimes feel obligated to eat lots of greens and

veggies and fruit and " healthy whole grains " --the whole grains i don't do. i

have only had cravings for the ice cream and applesauce. and i am sure it's b/c

i am not eating enough protein and fat at regular intervals.

Why does your starch have to be in the form of pasta (and I imagine

store bought improperly prepared pasta at that)?

well, for whatever reason things like homemade macaroni and cheese or

fettuccine alfredo are what i want more than potatoes. so i use rice pasta--the

Tinkyada brand that is supposed to be better than the rest. i don't really know

what " properly prepared pasta " is or if it even exists.

i am a true perfectionist and it's hard for me not to be able to eat what i

always imagined i would when i was pregnant for the second time. (the first was

a disaster) and i am trying as hard as i can to eat the very best foods, but

it's been really hard, much harder than i expected.

amanda

March 3, 2009

What dies he say about going no carb? Obviously Eskimos did it and our species

have had to do it in the past.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2009, at 7:57 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

,

> Do these authors provide evidence that you can completely go without any

> carbs?

I don't know about the authors you are referencing, but Stefansson sure does

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

March 3, 2009

Based on the nutrition data database meat doesn't have that much glycogen in it.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2009, at 8:10 PM, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was from stored glycogen in the

meat? Is there any proof the meat we eat nowadays still has glycogen

content?

-Lana

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:59 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Of course no one ever really goes without carbs, even on an all meat

> diet. I remember a study that seem to suggest the Inuit averaged

> about 53 grams of carbs per day.

March 3, 2009

The study was showing that the intake of a type of sugar from fruits,

vegetables, and honey had a negative impact on the immune system at 100g intake

(3.5 oz) at any given meal. Starches affected the body the least. I'll dig it

up. It is from Trick and Treat by Barry Groves. I don't know if it is so much

how it is prepared or if it is the type of sugars and the conversion of it in

the body that impacts it so much.

Your body can only fill up on so much glycogen at a time and some primitive

human tribes thrived on low carb. Especially further back 30,000-90,000 years

ago on and off from each ice age.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2009, at 8:35 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

,

> Our bodies aren't the best equipped to digest plant carbs.

Certainly not as is, in most cases.

> Just look at the

> difference between our stomachs compared to ruminant animals such as cows.

Right, which is why traditional groups went through such great pains

to prepare their carbs.

> Carbs deplete vitamins and minerals from the body. Starches such as potatoes

> do the least amount to weaken the immune system.

Where are you sourcing the information that properly prepared carbs

weaken the immune system?

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

March 3, 2009

There are a ton of listed studies in the glossary. I'm not sure which two show

are for the charts displaying how various carb weaken the immune system.

I don't think properly preparing the food helps. The reason for this is it's

more of an issue the type of sugar it is and how it converts rather then how

many enzymes/probiotics it has in it and being predigested.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2009, at 11:51 PM, Holt <danthemanholt@...> wrote:

The study was showing that the intake of a type of sugar from fruits,

vegetables, and honey had a negative impact on the immune system at 100g intake

(3.5 oz) at any given meal. Starches affected the body the least. I'll dig it

up. It is from Trick and Treat by Barry Groves. I don't know if it is so much

how it is prepared or if it is the type of sugars and the conversion of it in

the body that impacts it so much.

Your body can only fill up on so much glycogen at a time and some primitive

human tribes thrived on low carb. Especially further back 30,000-90,000 years

ago on and off from each ice age.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 2, 2009, at 8:35 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

,

> Our bodies aren't the best equipped to digest plant carbs.

Certainly not as is, in most cases.

> Just look at the

> difference between our stomachs compared to ruminant animals such as cows.

Right, which is why traditional groups went through such great pains

to prepare their carbs.

> Carbs deplete vitamins and minerals from the body. Starches such as potatoes

> do the least amount to weaken the immune system.

Where are you sourcing the information that properly prepared carbs

weaken the immune system?

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

March 4, 2009

Will raw milk raise blood sugar levels? Would I want to have meat with raw

milk?

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2009, at 8:16 PM, " paulsonntagericson " <paulsonntagericson@...>

wrote:

> >

> > > hi all,

> > >

> > > i am just wondering how many i actually need in my diet? w/ talk of

> > > anti-nutrients and food chemicals, plus the fact that I am trying to

> > > eat locally, i just wonder which ones to eat and how much. I am also

> > > totally revamping my diet to go gluten free and possibly casein free

> > > and low grain, so what to eat? living in colorado, the only local

> > > veggies I have right now are beets, onions, potatoes, turnips and

> > > carrots

> >

> > I really like the Polish Dr. Kwasniewski, and he says minimal carbs

> > from root veg are the best. So you are doing great for this time of

> > year. His ammounts are, at most, take your ideal weight in pounds,

> > times .8 and that is grams of carb per day. Starch is best.

> >

> > He says leafy veg are okay if you like animal fodder. This is why I

> > like this plan.

> >

> > But you do have to have lots of sat fat to help with the glucose too.

> >

>

March 4, 2009

Yeah, I'd go the optimal diet www.homodiet.netfirms.com

And then I would eat all my meat and my fat raw.

I would do prep with my veggies and starches. Barry Groves in his book Trick

and Treat doesn't talk at all about fermenting, culturing, and he doesn't

specify if the carbs have a bad effect on the immune system when eaten with fat

and protein. I thought it was strange starch didn't have much of a negative

impact on the immune system. I thought that would be the worse. I'm so

confused.

Thank you,

Holt

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2009, at 8:47 PM, " paulsonntagericson " <paulsonntagericson@...>

wrote:

I would recommend reading " Good Calorie, Bad Calorie " if you want a better

understanding of the role carbs play in nutrition, obesity and chronic disease.

Eating a low carb diet, like any diet requires careful planning.

A common problem is that if the ratio of protein to fat is wrong, you can get

very ill. Dr. Steffanson talks of this often in The Fat of the Land. Many people

report a significant difference between a 60/40 diet vs an 80/20 diet (fat/pro).

60/40 can lead to cramping, diarrhea, nausea, head ache.

Another common problem is your gall bladder may not be up to the task of a high

fat diet. If you get pains in your gall bladder, try slowly switching from high

carb to high fat. High carb diets can lead to gall bladder disease.

Yet another problem is that some people just don't like fat. The texture or

flavor is a turn off. My wife will gag if she can detect even a small lump of

fat. I'm the opposite. I buy fat by the pound, slice it and warm it up when I

grill my meat. I love it. To each their own.

Yet another problem is that carbs are addictive and ubiquitous so it can be

really hard to avoid them. Plus our carb focused food supply doesn't provide a

lot of low carb snack options.

Also keep in mind that just because a high carb diet is well tolerated, doesn't

mean it won't lead to a whole host of chronic diseases. This is well documented

in GCBC.

Many low carb diets before Atkins started with a fast. This may be better

tolerated than " the induction " . Keep in mind that a low carb diet is a fast of

sorts. This is why it's effective for weight loss. When you fast, your body

switches to ketosis, just like a low carb diet.

>

> > I wonder about the Atkins " induction " folks. Not to say you did it

> > this way but from what I have seen of the way many people have tried

> > " induction " with al the funky fats, lean meats, and other

> > questiionable (though low carb) food. Its no wonder they feel as bad

> > as they do.

>

> It must be my day to agree with you.

> shiver me timbers at the fake foods and lean meats and questionable

> foods that seem to be okay in some circles.

> My only no-no was not getting enough fat (naked refined fat grosses me

> out. Well except butter on potatoes) Not enough porterhouses I guess.

> And even eggs, I had a limit. I definitely didn't give enough

> transition time and knowing what I know now, I would never counsel

> myself to do such a sudden metabolic gear change anyway ( " induction " ).

>

March 4, 2009

Aajonus Vonderplanitz swears by raw meat and fat. He hasn't lifted weights in

19 years and is naturally built due to raw meat eating. He says it is due to

the fact that raw meat gets incorporated into the cell at a much quicker rate.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:04 AM, " paulsonntagericson " <paulsonntagericson@...>

wrote:

,

Have you read Good Calorie, Bad Calorie? It should answer many of your questions

about carbs.

Why eat all meat/fat raw? Many hunter cultures cook most their meat medium rare,

although they do also eat some raw.

> >

> > > I wonder about the Atkins " induction " folks. Not to say you did it

> > > this way but from what I have seen of the way many people have tried

> > > " induction " with al the funky fats, lean meats, and other

> > > questiionable (though low carb) food. Its no wonder they feel as bad

> > > as they do.

> >

> > It must be my day to agree with you.

> > shiver me timbers at the fake foods and lean meats and questionable

> > foods that seem to be okay in some circles.

> > My only no-no was not getting enough fat (naked refined fat grosses me

> > out. Well except butter on potatoes) Not enough porterhouses I guess.

> > And even eggs, I had a limit. I definitely didn't give enough

> > transition time and knowing what I know now, I would never counsel

> > myself to do such a sudden metabolic gear change anyway ( " induction " ).

> >

>

March 15, 2009

,

>> But even if they did live long and healthy lives, there are other

>> groups that did consider fruits and vegetables " proper human food " and

>> live apparently long and healthy lives. So the data per se wouldn't

>> answer the question of what we should adopt as the ideal diet.

>

> Quite true. In fact there is no data that answers the question of whether

> adding fruits and veggies to their diet would have made them live longer.

The point I was making was that the addition of something that some

considered not " proper human food " doesn't appear to detract from

healthy long lives.

>> > Taubes in Good Calorie, Bad Calorie makes a strong case against

>> > carbs. Most vegetables are mostly carbs. I would recommend you read

>> > this book.

>>

>> I like him, but when it comes to carbs, IMO, he paints with way too

>> broad a brush, but that is not unusual for " low-carbers "

>

>> > I would say the answer really depends on a couple of factors. If you

>> > have a hard time controlling your weight, I would recommend a low-carb

>> > diet to see if that helps.

Why? This is my point, painting with way too broad a brush. If a

person is overweight, maybe the answer is to change the quality of the

carbs, not go low carb. The assumption is that all carbs are bad. You

can lose weight on a high carb diet with normal activity without any

crazy caloric restriction or funky exercise routines.

Lots of people aren't going low carb, that is a fact. The good news is

that lots of people don't have to go low carb, although some might,

but not nearly as many as the low carbers would have you think.

My sister has lost 80 pounds over the last year, and she is not a

WAPer. The only real change in her diet is that she gave up grains,

but is still eating high carb.

> Many popular vegetables are high in carbs.

>> > Taubes talks about some people who are so sensitive to carbs that

>> > eating a single apple in a low-carb diet can stop their weight loss.

>> > But of course this is an extreme example.

>> >

>> > Also keep in mind that is appears that carbs increase our requirements

>> > for certain vitamins like the Bs and C so it's important to realize

>> > that if you are eating starchy veggies for the vitamins, that the

>> > carbs themselves are an anti-nutrient of sorts.

>>

>> Obviously there is a place for low carb, but more and more " low-carb "

>> seems to be developing its own " this is the only way mentality. " You

>> simply cannot draw such a conclusion from the work of Price, not to

>> mention the research of others.

>

> Taubes speaks very highly of Dr. Price's work. I think Price's work is

> appealing to low carb advocates because it clearly demonstrates that diets

> high in animal fats are healthful.

Yes but many low-carbers paint with too broad a brush, no matter how

highly they speak of Price's work, they speak with a slanted

perspective. Such a perspective is even evident on the WAPF website.

As far as I am concerned, Taubes is doing what Shakespeare called "

damning with faint praise " when it comes to Weston Price, either that

or he is terribly confused. He is adding in my opinion to the " low

carb religion " , despite some really good work. Price indeed

**observed** that a diet high in animal fats can be healthful, but he

also observed the opposite, that a diet high in carbs can be healthful

as well.

> But almost all the peoples Price studied ate quite a lot of carbs. And Dr.

> Price didn't think there was anything wrong with carbs per se. He even used

> carbs in his caries healing protocol. But he did recognize that refined

> carbs like sugar and white flour are harmful.

Right. That is precisely my point.

> Taubes is not advocating zero carbs.

I didn't say he was, but he slants heavily towards **low carbs** and

paints all carbs with too broad a brush. I made no mention of zero

carb.

> Most of his work is focused on exposing

> the low quality of science in nutrition, obesity and chronic disease

> research.

And to the extent that he does that his work is quite goood.

> It's clear from his work that sugar, white flour and beer are the

> most dangerous carbs because of how they manipulate insulin levels.

Beer? Dangerous per se? Bah! And he doesn't just confine himself to

the carbs that most would consider dangerous, but more about that in

another post.

> His basic thesis is that if you're over weight you're eating too many carbs.

> This was common knowledge from 1865-1960s, it only seems weird now because

> of the low-fat crusade that Keys started.

Its not that its weird, its that as a defining thesis its wrong and

simplistic. It may or may not be true depending on a number of

variables. Its not that I don't think low carb is valuable. I actually

plan on following a near zero carb diet for good chunks of the year,

but it is not the automatic answer that many low carbers make it out

to be.

> Taubes also points out that nutrition research in particular is currently

> more like religion than it is like science. I agree that some low-carb

> people are fanatics.

>

> However, if you have any chronic disease or are over weight, I would

> recommend reducing your carb intake.

See above.

> Anthropological data seems to indicate that many groups of primitives will

> eat nothing but meat if it's available in sufficient quantity. Even when

> times are lean, they will start to eat less desirable parts of animals that

> would normally go to their dogs. Then they will eat their dogs. Then when no

> animals are around, they will eat fruits and vegetables. So this desire to

> eat meat seems pretty strong. And you can either interpret this as

> degenerate or astute. I think they are astute as animal based food is far

> more nutritious than vegetable based food.

I don't think this is relevant to the point I was making.

> I think meat has chronically been in short supply. I know this seems

> impossible when you go to the grocery store. But one theory states that

> agriculture was developed in part because of over hunting. Even the Mastidon

> appears to have been hunted into extinction by faunivorous humans.

I don't know. I'm not of fan of trying to trace down anthropological

food theories. Interesting but too much speculation IMO to be anything

more than an interesting data point.

> For

> centuries in Europe, the land tenant system kept farmers so poor they

> couldn't afford to raise, and therefore eat much meat. During the late 19th

> and early 20th century, there was a meat shortage because of rapid

> population growth, the depression and WW II. So I think carbs have always

> been a caloric backup/supplement.

That strikes me as a non-sequitor.

> But there is also the issue of carb-carving. Carbs make you hungry because

> they raise your insulin level. And they also produce responses in the brain

> similar to addictive drugs. So carbs have many important factors that have

> kept them on the menu.

There you go again painting with that really wide brush. Too simplistic.

>> > The other concern I have about anything from the vegetable kingdom is

>> > genistein. All plants contain sterols which are hormones. Some are

>> > similar to estrogen, like genistein. Many plants CAN contain genistein

>> > and some have rather high quantities. But there has not been a lot of

>> > testing, although because of recent interest in genistein, more is

>> > being published all the time. The reason I say " can " is that the

>> > levels seem to vary by species, variety, crop, field, season, etc.

>>

>> So is this a function of depleted soils?

>

> I don't really know what cultural practices or other factors affects

> genistein levels in plants. I would tend to think depleted soils would

> result in lower genistein.

Why? Certain substances tend to rise in plants grown in depleted soil.

--

It doesn't matter how many people don't get it. What matters is how

many people do. If you have a strong informed opinion, don't keep it

to yourself. Try and help people and make the world a better place. If

you strive to do anything remotely interesting, just expect a small

percentage of the population to always find a way to take it

personally. F*ck 'em. There are no statues erected to critics.

- Ferriss

March 23, 2009

Connie,

>> You

>> can lose weight on a high carb diet with normal activity without any

>> crazy caloric restriction or funky exercise routines.

>

> You think this is true for everyone, ?

Nope. I don't think anything is true for everyone.

> What are you calling normal

> activity, high carb, crazy caloric restriction, or funky exercise?

High carb - any diet where the primary macronutrient is carbs

crazy caloric restriction - any low calorie regime that cannot be

maintained as a lifestyle

funky exercise - that should be funky exercise **programs** by which I

mean any protocol that is impossible to maintain over time as part of

a normal lifestyle - like a stay at home mom with 4 kids who gets

motivated to stay in shape and the embarks on a two hour a day program

on a 800 calorie diet, loses a ton of weight but simply cannot

maintain such an extreme lifestyle.

> I know lots of women who have failed on their versions of such a

> description.

These are the versions as I see it:

SCD - the standard high carb western diet that many people eat

WCD - the " healthy " high carb diet that people sometimes adopt when

making a change

TCD - the traditional carb diet that is almost universally ignored by

everyone although it has no history of making people fat or otherwise

prone to disease. This is embodied by groups like the Bantu, the Swiss

of the Loetschental Vally, the Tokelauans, the Kitavans, and others.

The traditional carb diet is often very high in carbs, but not the

kind of carbs consumed by modern western style dieters.

The first and second groups will usually lead to failure. The last

group can often result in success. It is what I was referring to

during the Oprah thread when I suggested a better way to reach Oprah

(and her audience) is to recommend a diet of her ancestors which is

high carb but vastly different from the junk she is eating.

My guess is very few of the women you are referring to adopted the

traditional carb diet, certainly not in its entirety.

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

March 23, 2009

I was reading that two thirds of of carbs in high carb diets convert to fat.

It's better to limit carb intake to one third and have fat as the other two

thirds. It's also much cheaper on the budget and better for your health Your

body will have more energy for it as fat is a better source of ATP than carbs

and is the preffered fuel for your mitochondria.

Fatty foods taste better too.

Yours Truly,

Dan Holt

On Mar 22, 2009, at 9:43 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

Connie,

>> You

>> can lose weight on a high carb diet with normal activity without any

>> crazy caloric restriction or funky exercise routines.

>

> You think this is true for everyone, ?

Nope. I don't think anything is true for everyone.

> What are you calling normal

> activity, high carb, crazy caloric restriction, or funky exercise?

High carb - any diet where the primary macronutrient is carbs

crazy caloric restriction - any low calorie regime that cannot be

maintained as a lifestyle

funky exercise - that should be funky exercise **programs** by which I

mean any protocol that is impossible to maintain over time as part of

a normal lifestyle - like a stay at home mom with 4 kids who gets

motivated to stay in shape and the embarks on a two hour a day program

on a 800 calorie diet, loses a ton of weight but simply cannot

maintain such an extreme lifestyle.

> I know lots of women who have failed on their versions of such a

> description.

These are the versions as I see it:

SCD - the standard high carb western diet that many people eat

WCD - the " healthy " high carb diet that people sometimes adopt when

making a change

TCD - the traditional carb diet that is almost universally ignored by

everyone although it has no history of making people fat or otherwise

prone to disease. This is embodied by groups like the Bantu, the Swiss

of the Loetschental Vally, the Tokelauans, the Kitavans, and others.

The traditional carb diet is often very high in carbs, but not the

kind of carbs consumed by modern western style dieters.

The first and second groups will usually lead to failure. The last

group can often result in success. It is what I was referring to

during the Oprah thread when I suggested a better way to reach Oprah

(and her audience) is to recommend a diet of her ancestors which is

high carb but vastly different from the junk she is eating.

My guess is very few of the women you are referring to adopted the

traditional carb diet, certainly not in its entirety.

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

March 23, 2009

Dan,

> I was reading that two thirds of of carbs in high carb diets convert to fat.

What kind of high carb diets? One of the points of my post is just

saying " high carb " doesn't tell us anything.

> It's better to limit carb intake to one third and have fat as the other two

> thirds. It's also much cheaper on the budget and better for your health

> Your body will have more energy for it as fat is a better source of ATP than

> carbs and is the preffered fuel for your mitochondria.

Then you need to expand your reading, beginning with the groups I listed.

>

> Fatty foods taste better too.

Like your comments about the taste of kefir, this is highly

subjective. Nor does high carb mean the absence of fatty food.

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

March 23, 2009

Your body can store up to 375g of dietary carbs at a time in glycogen. Your

body can store up to 333g of dietary fat as intramuscular triglycerides.

That is 1500cal of glycogen and

3000cal of intramuscular triglycerides.

Say you had a moderate fat high carb diet and you are a 180 pound cyclist and

your fuel stores are depleted. You consumed...

60g of fat

800g of carbs

375g of the carbs will store as glycogen

425g of the carbs will store as Intramuscular triglycerides.

That 425g of carbs is equivalent to 188g of fat. You are still short 85g of fat

and your body's fuel source won't be optimal.

That's my example.

Yours Truly,

Dan Holt

On Mar 22, 2009, at 10:52 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

Dan,

> I was reading that two thirds of of carbs in high carb diets convert to fat.

What kind of high carb diets? One of the points of my post is just

saying " high carb " doesn't tell us anything.

> It's better to limit carb intake to one third and have fat as the other two

> thirds. It's also much cheaper on the budget and better for your health

> Your body will have more energy for it as fat is a better source of ATP than

> carbs and is the preffered fuel for your mitochondria.

Then you need to expand your reading, beginning with the groups I listed.

>

> Fatty foods taste better too.

Like your comments about the taste of kefir, this is highly

subjective. Nor does high carb mean the absence of fatty food.

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

March 23, 2009

Dan,

>

> That's my example.

I'm not sure how the numbers work out from any particular study, and I

don't have the time or desire to research it fully, but my point is

there are actual groups that Price observed and others who had/have

very high carb diets and they do not get fat.

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

March 23, 2009

High carb can work. IMO, it's cheaper, better for your energy, and better for

your immune system if you consume twice as much calories in dietary fat over

dietary carbs.

Yours Truly,

Dan Holt

On Mar 22, 2009, at 11:37 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

Dan,

>

> That's my example.

I'm not sure how the numbers work out from any particular study, and I

don't have the time or desire to research it fully, but my point is

there are actual groups that Price observed and others who had/have

very high carb diets and they do not get fat.

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

March 23, 2009

I just threw out some science. The body burns glycogen even with a high fat

diet. I think moderate carb high fat is ideal for an active individual. It

would be nice to get a chart that shows what types of calories get burned with a

high fat moderate carb diet based on various activities at various weight

ranges.

As an athlete I will still consume moderate carb. If I were sedentary I

wouldn't exceed 72-110g of carbs a day.

Based on the evidence it would be wise to consume a 2-1 fat to carb calorie

ratio for athletics.

Yours Truly,

Dan Holt

On Mar 23, 2009, at 3:10 PM, " paulsonntagericson " <paulsonntagericson@...>

wrote:

All calories that we consume go into four basic places. Heat, Work, Fat or

Muscle. Each person has a unique distribution into these four places. Naturally

thin people can eat as much as much as they want because their metabolism

diverts most calories to heat and work. This is why they are thin and more

active. They are not thin because they are more active, the causual arrow points

in the other direction. Natural athletes divert to heat, work and muscle which

is why they are more active and more muscular. Obese people divert mostly to fat

which is why they are sedentary. They are not obese because they are more

sedentary, again the causal arrow points in the other direction.

But not all calories are created equal. Carbs raise blood sugar which triggers

insulin release. Insulin stimulates appetite and fat storage. Low carb diets

keep insulin low, appetite low and fat storage low.

Calories restriction causes everyone's metabolism to slow down, this is an

adaption for survival. This is why calories restriction (dieting) rarely works

in the long term. Exercise stimulates appetite by increasing energy

requirements.

You gotta read GCBC, Taubes spells all this out and will make you realize that

much of what you assume to be true about dieting, obesity and metabolism is

probably wrong, or at least is not supported with any science.

>

> Dan,

>

> > I was reading that two thirds of of carbs in high carb diets convert to fat.

>

> What kind of high carb diets? One of the points of my post is just

> saying " high carb " doesn't tell us anything.

>

> > It's better to limit carb intake to one third and have fat as the other two

> > thirds. It's also much cheaper on the budget and better for your health

> > Your body will have more energy for it as fat is a better source of ATP than

> > carbs and is the preffered fuel for your mitochondria.

>

> Then you need to expand your reading, beginning with the groups I listed.

>

> >

> > Fatty foods taste better too.

>

> Like your comments about the taste of kefir, this is highly

> subjective. Nor does high carb mean the absence of fatty food.

>

> --

> " Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

> reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

> to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

> Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

> radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

> automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

>

> Kramer

>

March 24, 2009

Connie,

>> My guess is very few of the women you are referring to adopted the

>> traditional carb diet, certainly not in its entirety.

>

> Very true. Although an exception can be made for women who try to follow

> McDougall. They seem to have an awful time - follow the program, but don't

> see results.

I don't think an exception can be made for McDougall. TCD's are not

vegan or slightly vegetarian or low in saturated fats. His approach is

not a TCD which might explain the trouble those women were having

using his diet. I for one cannot eat a high starch vegan diet unless

it is loaded with saturated fat. And that is the interesting thing

about the TCD groups, while they are low fat overall, they are not low

saturated fat and they certainly are not vegan/vegetarian.

> Which makes me wonder if the damage done by the SAD can be undone by the

> TCD. Did TCD people ever cope with insulin resistance, non-alcoholic fatty

> liver disease, or depleted minerals from sugar use? I usually think that a

> diet that is healthy forever like the TCD, can be used to restore health,

> but I wonder if that's possible.

I think so, but it would need to be a true TCD and not something like

McDougalls. I also think some folks may in fact have to leave carbs

altogether in order to heal and then come back to them at a later

date. Like all things it will vary from individual to individual.

Again, that is why I am a big fan of elimination diets, be it fasting,

milk, or meat, because they allow the body to heal regardless of the

subsequent macronutrient ratio a person chooses.

Others argue that you can heal using starches if done properly. I

think everyone has to find their own way. The guy referred to

as " the notorious Bruce K " is now extolling the healing powers of a

high starch diet, even changing the name of his AV-Skeptics group to

the High-Everything Diet.

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

March 24, 2009

You just sighted experts saying that the brain and central nervous system

utilize 120-130g of glucose a day.

That would mean I want to consume atleast that much in carbs. Starches are the

best of all evils as they only do one third the immune defense reduction than

other types of carbs. I would want to consume more fat for a glycogen sparing

effect and quite a bit too as the body uses quite a bit of fat energy everyday.

I'd rather not not consume too much protein as it puts a lot if work on the

organs and depleted minerals from the body.

Most athletes consume way too many carbs. They'd do better to cut almost half

and up their fat intake.

Yours Truly,

Dan Holt

On Mar 24, 2009, at 10:01 AM, " lynchwt " <lynchwt@...> wrote:

>

> I just threw out some science. The body burns glycogen even with a high fat

diet. I think moderate carb high fat is ideal for an active individual. It would

be nice to get a chart that shows what types of calories get burned with a high

fat moderate carb diet based on various activities at various weight ranges.

>

> As an athlete I will still consume moderate carb. If I were sedentary I

wouldn't exceed 72-110g of carbs a day.

>

> Based on the evidence it would be wise to consume a 2-1 fat to carb calorie

ratio for athletics.

>

> Yours Truly,

> Dan Holt

Dan, I don't know what the source of the science is--you have a tendency to

quote figures about how much " the body " burns or needs of something without

establishing the basis for this (or by citing some dietary guru who may or may

not know what he is talking about). You seem to be relying upon false

assumptions about fat metabolism that still, unfortunately, inform modern

nutritional science despite the fact that they have been decisively refuted for

a half century or so.

Taubes' book does not just provide yet another dietary scheme brought down from

the mountain, but looks at the evidence--and the strength of the evidence--

regarding carbohydrates and separates out the dominant conclusions that evade or

ignore this evidence.

Relevant here is the notion that carbs are needed to power our muscles and the

allegedly harmful effect of low carb diets. The book is exhaustive, but a few

relevant excerpts:

" From the 1920s through the 1960s, a series of discoveries in the basic science

of fat metabolism led to a revolution in the understanding of the role of

insulin and the regulation of fat tissue in the human body. This era began with

a handful of naive assumptions: that fat tissue is relatively inert (a " garbage

can, " in the words of the Swiss physiologist Bernard Jeanrenaud); that

carbohydrates are the primary fuel for muscular activity (which is still

commonly believed today); and that fat is used for fuel only after being

converted in the liver into supposedly toxic ketone bodies. The forty years of

research that followed would overturn them all--but it would have effectively no

influence on the mainstream thinking about human obesity (p. 382). "

There follows a very interesting section about the fluid status of fat reserves,

something that tends to be interrupted with obesity and ignored by those warning

about the need for athletes to ingest enough carbs. In any event:

" There are three distinct phases of the revolution that converged by the

mid-1960s to overturn what Bruch called the " time-honored assumption that fat

tissue is metabolically inert, " and the accompanying conviction that fat only

enters the fat tissue after a meal and only leaves it when the body is in

negative energy balance (p. 382). "

1st phase: fat tissues have distinct structures and are in a continual state of

flux and are not mere repositories. The 2nd phase involves the Krebs cycle and

showed that fats and proteins supply fuel for muscle tissue and that carbs were

not the preferred fuel. This research suggested that fat tissues were not a

" savings account, " but a " coin purse " for ready use (something that gets

interrupted in carb-stimulated obesity, hence the cells are starving and signal

the body to eat more and move less). The third phase " established the dominant

role of fatty acids in supplying energy for the body, and the fundamental role

of insulin and adipose tissue as the regulators of energy supply " (p. 385).

" As early as 1907, the German physiologist Adolf Magnus-Levy had noted that

during periods of fasting between meals " the fat streams from the depots back

again into the blood...as if it were necessary for the immediate needs of the

combustion processes of the body. " A decade later, Francis Benedict reported

that blood sugar provides only a " small component " of the fuel we use during

fasting, and this drops away to " none at all " if our fast continues for more

than a week. In such cases, fat will supply 85 percent of our energy needs, and

protein the rest, after its conversion to glucose in the liver. Still because

the brain and central nervous system typically burn 120 to 130 grams of glucose

a day, nutritionists insisted (as many still do) that carbohydrates must be our

primary fuel, and they remained skeptical of the notion that fat plays any role

in energy balance other than as a long-term reserve for emergencies. "

" Among physiologists and biochemists, any such skepticism began to evaporate

after Wertheimer's review of fat metabolism appeared in 1948. It vanished after

the 1956 publication of papers by Dole at Rockefeller University,

Gordon at NIH, and Sigfrid Laurell of the University of Lund in Sweden that

reported the development of a technique for measuring the concentration of fatty

acids in the circulation. All three articles suggested that these fatty acids

were the form in which fat is burned for fuel in the body. The concentration of

fatty acids in the circulation, they reported, is surprisingly low immediately

after a meal, when blood-sugar levels are highest, but then increases steadily

in the hours that follow, as the blood sugar ebbs. Injecting either glucose or

insulin into the circulation diminishes the level of fatty acids almost

immediately. It's as though our cells have the option of using fatty acids or

glucose for fuel, but when

surplus glucose is available, as signaled by rising insulin or blood-sugar

levels, the fatty acids are swept into the fat tissue for later use. The

concentartion of circulating fatty acids rises and falls in " relation to the

need " for fuel... " (pp. 385-386).

A key point to notice here is the disconnect between what physiologists and

biochemists were uncovering about the hormonal regulation of fat and energy and

how nutritionists continued to use a very reductive, non-fluid conception of

what the body needs from dietary sources. , this reminds me of your modus

operandi here, tallying up how much your body " needs " from diet by looking at

what body parts (brains, muscles) use during the day, when the evidence suggests

that the body is very good at utilizing fat and protein in place of carbs.

Of course, it's possible that an athlete may perform better on high or moderate

carbs, but there is absolutely no evidence right now that that is the case and

lots of suggestive evidence that this is not true. And the point about long-term

consequences for athletes is an important one. I used to play basketball 4 hours

a day, six days a week, and a high carb, vegan diet seemed to help at the time.

But I developed allergies, asthma, and other inflammatory conditions, which I've

begun to reverse with a healthier diet. I only play basketball twice a week now,

but at high intensity and I haven't noticed any drop off in energy (and an

increase in strength) since I cut carbs.

None of this says that in a healthy individual whose metabolism has not already

been disregulated, that traditional carbs would be damaging. But the key suspect

in the host of diseases of civilization seem to be tied to the effect of

excessive and/or refined carbs in disrupting homeostatic regulation of

metabolism. And there certainly seems to be no evidence that active or athletic

people need the amount of carbs you have suggested.

Best,

Bill

March 24, 2009

Based upon the figures I heard only 10% of dietary fat or intramuscular

triglycerides will store as ketones for glucose.