I see it more as Atkins challenging the evidentiary bases laid down by many, many free thinking scientists before and after him. Kind of like "Dr." Andrew Wakefield and his anti-vax nonsense.
Kn.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.
I see it more as Atkins challenging the evidentiary bases laid down by many, many free thinking scientists before and after him. Kind of like "Dr." Andrew Wakefield and his anti-vax nonsense.
What is your position on low/no-carb diets?
I was thinking about this the other day, and this is not the first time in human history that a lone scientist has insisted they were right, despite most of the establishment disagreeing.
"All great truths begin as heresies" (George Bernard Shaw, Writer).
"But not all heresies end up as great truths" (Simon Singh, Physicst/Writer)
What is your position on low/no-carb diets?
I'm no expert, but I did read a lot back in the days when I was XC racing (like, 10-15 years ago). I haven't kept with the same passion that I did then, but I do read the odd article. Seems to me that it's all about balance. Most good articles that discuss balancing your energy inputs use ratios of about 40% carb, 30% fat and 30% proteins with some minor variations (say, about +/- 5% depending on which article you're reading).
http://thescienceofeating.com/food-combining-how-it-works/calories-fat-carbs-protein-per-day/
Of course, that must be taken with the understanding that there are good fats and sugars and bad ones, so choices are still important.
Low carb diets produce an initial large weight loss because starving oneself of carbs causes the body to reach into glycogen stores to fulfill energy needs for important stuff like, oh, getting your brain to function. Each gram of glycogen is bound up with about for grams of water, so utilizing the glycogen releases the water. So you quite literally piss out your lost weight. This is not fat loss and it's not healthy, IMO.
Kn.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.
I see it more as Atkins challenging the evidentiary bases laid down by many, many free thinking scientists before and after him. Kind of like "Dr." Andrew Wakefield and his anti-vax nonsense.
Kn.
yes there are issues with the atkins based diet, just as there are issues with the current mainstream ideology of low-fat/high-carb. but the human body, given the right things, is a wonderfully adaptive mechanism for processing nutrients.
the question has always been what are the right things. well if one lets go of the dogma of either school of thought and focuses on the commonalities between the two, something so common sense appears that for some reason people want to ignore it because it's not a fancy idea of supported by the latest study.
what people need to focus on is eat fresh, whole food and avoid processed food. period, full stop. rinse and repeat:
eat fresh, whole food and avoid processed food.
that is all the nutrition advice pretty much anyone ever needs to know.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
just as there are issues with the current mainstream ideology of low-fat/high-carb. but the human body, given the right things, is a wonderfully adaptive mechanism for processing nutrients.
When you talk "mainstream ideology", are you specifically referring to it in terms of "dieting" or "weight loss", or more broadly in terms of diet recommendations for all?
In my own experience, most of what I've read talks about the balance I mentioned above (40/30/30 or thereabouts) and low fat (also crap IMO) is in reference to weight loss diets.
I would suggest that the balance of carb/fat/protein should be maintained, and the best weight loss will be through portion control and measured increases in energy output. By best, I mean weight lost that stays off!
Kn.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.
Talk to a nutrtionist
Nutrtionist sounds like something to look into. I have done everything else suggested over the years.
Please see an actual registered Dietician and not just someone that calls themselves a nutritionist.
Low carb diets produce an initial large weight loss because starving oneself of carbs causes the body to reach into glycogen stores to fulfill energy needs for important stuff like, oh, getting your brain to function. Each gram of glycogen is bound up with about for grams of water, so utilizing the glycogen releases the water. So you quite literally piss out your lost weight. This is not fat loss and it's not healthy, IMO.
Kn.
a lot of mistruth there - like the implied suggestion the brain only runs on glucose.
the biggest factor has to do with the decrease in caloric intake when cutting out carbs. it's difficult to replace all those lost carb calories (often primarily from processed grains, sugar and sugar additives - what the avg person will be cutting out) with an increase in meat, legumes, nuts, vegetable and fruits.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
Please see an actual registered Dietician and not just someone that calls themselves a nutritionist.
True dat. There is no regulation as to who can call themselves a nutritionist, and no minimum requirements to do so.
Kn.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.
When you talk "mainstream ideology", are you specifically referring to it in terms of "dieting" or "weight loss", or more broadly in terms of diet recommendations for all?
In my own experience, most of what I've read talks about the balance I mentioned above (40/30/30 or thereabouts) and low fat (also crap IMO) is in reference to weight loss diets.
I would suggest that the balance of carb/fat/protein should be maintained, and the best weight loss will be through portion control and measured increases in energy output. By best, I mean weight lost that stays off!
Kn.
more broadly in terms of diet rec's for all, ie canada food guide and u.s. food pyramid. i use diet in the sense it intended - what your daily nutrient intake is. the mainstream (read gov'ts and medical community) is a long way off the 40/30/30 split (dr. sears "zone diet") which i agree is a good way to base macronutrient intake.
edit - the beauty of eating only fresh whole foods is that it is difficult to over eat on this type of diet.
i had plans many years ago to do a masters in nutrition and the thesis was to explore the relationship between the typical high-calorie, nutrient poor diet and a low to moderate calorie nutrient dense diet with the thinking that the nutrient dense diet would naturally lead to a lower calorie intake because the body was being supplied with the nutrients it required and would adjust metabolic rates to energy requirements.
in essence we're doing it wrong by basing nutrient intake on calories when we should be basing it on nutrient requirements.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
True dat. There is no regulation as to who can call themselves a nutritionist, and no minimum requirements to do so.
Kn.
Exactly. Some whack job like you or syncro could go and call themselves Nutritionists. ;)
I personally an going to prescribe a diet of 50% pork, 25% deep fried stuff, and 25% beer. You can go +/- 5% on the beer with red wine if you want.
Hmmmm … I looked at the google translation of SBU Report no: 218 from Swedish (which is a bit garbled and limited), but nowhere does it recommend high-fat/low carb as nutritional guidelines. Their recommendations are specifically for obese people who are on weight reduction plans, not recommendations for the general public.
Take a look
It states
"Several tips on changing eating habits can lead to weight reduction in people with obesity. So it is good with a wide variety of dietary guidelines. In the short term, six months, giving advice on low-carb diet more effective than low-fat diets. Long-term no noticeable differences between the various dietary guidelines. "
So if an obese person wants to lose more weight in six months, they should reduce their carb intake rather than their fat intake. Remember - this is for an obese person, not a healthy-weight person. Not an overweight person. It says there is no difference between the 2 diets in the long term - ie post 6 months carb reduction works just as well as fat reduction. Presumably cutting down on both fats and carbs would work even better? No? Do I get a Nobel Prize for that?
The report also explicitly states "The purpose of this report was to systematically compile the scientific literature for advice on food to, or actually food intake in people with obesity … SBU has not reviewed studies related to dietary advice to normal or overweight individuals or to the whole population."
If you are obese, feel free to follow their guidelines … it may help you. Normal and overweight adults, maybe not so much.
The ironic part is that if you google "sweden dietary advice" you find tons of articles from diet and health sites pedalling some product or idea or other talking about how Swedish experts are recommending low carb, high-fat diets as a national health strategy, and the odd peer-reviewed scientific research paper like this one from the British Medical Journal
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735105
with
"CONCLUSIONS: Low carbohydrate-high protein diets, used on a regular basis and without consideration of the nature of carbohydrates or the source of proteins, are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease."
Just sayin' ….
Exactly. Some whack job like you or syncro could go and call themselves Nutritionists. ;)
I personally an going to prescribe a diet of 50% pork, 25% deep fried stuff, and 25% beer. You can go +/- 5% on the beer with red wine if you want.
ha! even a reg'd dietician can get it wrong if they're presecribing to incorrect methodology though. besides, body fat issues are primarily metabolic in nature and can/may be nutrient related
eat fresh whole food (and like KenN says a good balance) and avoid processed food.
for most of us that's all we need to know.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
I'm no expert, but I did read a lot back in the days when I was XC racing (like, 10-15 years ago). I haven't kept with the same passion that I did then, but I do read the odd article. Seems to me that it's all about balance. Most good articles that discuss balancing your energy inputs use ratios of about 40% carb, 30% fat and 30% proteins with some minor variations (say, about +/- 5% depending on which article you're reading).
http://thescienceofeating.com/food-combining-how-it-works/calories-fat-carbs-protein-per-day/
Of course, that must be taken with the understanding that there are good fats and sugars and bad ones, so choices are still important.
Low carb diets produce an initial large weight loss because starving oneself of carbs causes the body to reach into glycogen stores to fulfill energy needs for important stuff like, oh, getting your brain to function. Each gram of glycogen is bound up with about for grams of water, so utilizing the glycogen releases the water. So you quite literally piss out your lost weight. This is not fat loss and it's not healthy, IMO.
So, if I read correctly, you are of the opinion that low/no carb diets are not healthy and this reasoning is based on knowledge mostly gathered ten to fifteen years ago while studying for proper fuelling of an endurance based sport?
Your final paragraph neglects to mention how our bodies can adapt to no/low carbs and transition into a ketogenic state.
Anything you'd care to disagree with here?
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/ketosis-advantaged-or-misunderstood-state-part-i
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-interplay-of-exercise-and-ketosis-part-ii
"CONCLUSIONS: Low carbohydrate-high protein diets, used on a regular basis and without consideration of the nature of carbohydrates or the source of proteins, are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease."
Just sayin' ….
Wow, at the very least both myself and Jeff Volek were hoodwinked.
Jeff Volek, PhD, RD, professor and nutrition researcher at the University of Connecticut adds that, "It will be interesting to see how quickly other countries follow suit, recognizing that managing carbohydrates is the key to handling certain health conditions. Lower-fat varieties of foods are often higher in sugars and carbohydrates, which is simply counter-intuitive for people who need to control metabolism-related conditions like diabetes, metabolic syndrome and insulin sensitivity, all of which are related to obesity."
Forum jump:
