The myths/assumptions promoted and supported by the low carbers in this forum

[fgummett]

What about the myths/assumptions promoted and supported by the low carbers in this forum? You don't seem so eager to point those out.

I am open to discuss any concrete examples you may have.

I am puzzled as to why you think someone who is clearly "pro" the low-carb approach would actively point out any failings in that approach... although I do strive to be balanced..?

[foxl]

What are these myths and assumptions, Grunch?

I have seen evidence to support low fat and evidence to support low carb. I would like to know what you know that negates low carbing.

[Barberian]

I'm not a low carb'er per se... but... my BS is much better controled with much lower after meal #'s. High carb = high spike for me. I don't have much of a reserve capacity to throw caution to the wind. Bag of Doritoz, BBQ potato chips or even a large serving and my #'s are up into the 300's for hours. (Sob... Doritoz! WHY have you abandoned me???)

That's just my 2 coppers.

[matingara]

i think a lot of the problem is RELATIVE.

for most people in today's world anything less than about 1,000,000 carbs per day is considered "low carb". :)

that is why we are getting beaten up here for daring to suggest that people even consider reducing consumption of the marvellous wonder carbs that are blessed by the all knowing and powerful Oz (or did i mean "the media"???).

seriously, if someone starts their day with orange juice, toast, cereal, jelly and a banana. they would be applauded for a healthy breakfast. follow that with a wholemeal blueberry muffin for morning tea. follow that with a salad roll for lunch and a couple of apples. afternoon tea and maybe a treat of a bag of potato chips.

go home end have a big bowl of wholemeal pasta, beef sauce and a salad.

followed by fruit salad for dessert.

show that diet to any dietitian and you would be applauded for your marvellous, model diet.

but - how many carbs is it??? i make that at about 430 grams??? am i off by far do you think???

wow!!! that is ridiculous. 430g of carbs and it looks like a model diet from the "homepage of the synchronized idiots".

so let us be controversial and say reduce the carbs by 75% - a HUGE, WHOPPING 75%!!!!!!!!!! you would get your daily intake down to just over 100g. still high in carbs - but OK - or at least better.

so - if i can show by this dopey example that "By suggesting that you cut down the carbs in a dietitians dream day by 75%" - you get somewhere near something that is almost healthy. then you can understand that if we suggest going down to 50g of carbs per day - that people are going to call us whackos.

that is the problem. it is relative - you see...

[DeusXM]

There's a few that tend to go around and aren't always addressed.

A low-carb diet is the 'original' diet for humans

In short, we don't really know what the 'original' diet is for humans. We can speculate all we like but the nature of food means we don't find preserved meals from the stone age. Some people believe we ate lots of meat and fat because of the seasonality of fruit, veg and grain and the evidence of animal bones in caves. Others believe that the amount of work required to hunt animals, the mental dimorphism between men and women, the predominantly herbivorous/omnivorous nature of the homo genus and evidence of the cultivation of rice and potatoes long before an established 'civilisation' suggest otherwise. In the absence of definitive proof either way, this question is seriously open to debate.

The diet our grandparents ate while young is far healthier than our diet now because it was high in fat and low in carbs

This doesn't take into account the reality that people were more likely to work manual jobs, have fewer labour saving devices or sedentary activities to divert them. It also doesn't take into account other elements of food such as additives, or the increased availability of food today, or portion sizes. Furthermore, it's dubious to say carbs didn't form a significant part of recent historical diets - after all, the Irish Potato Famine was a disaster, and recall the devastation wreaked by the Corn Laws.

The Inuit (or another generic 'tribal' group) do very well on a low-carb/no-carb diet, ergo the low-carb diet is the right one because someone from outside that group also did well on it

For every group that does well on low-carb, there's another group that eats lots of carbs and does very well, such as pretty much the whole of Asia. There's also wildly conflicting studies that say either carbs or fat cause heart disease to the point it's impossible to make definitive statement. The best you can draw from this is either that each diet used by an established ethnic group simply 'works' (since they survive), that there are variances between different ethnic groups in terms of metabolism, or there are factors beyond simply diet that influence the effect your food has on you.

Low-carb diets don't have any side-effects

In the popular imagination (and possibly reality), ketosis, the end result of low-carbing, results in greasy skin and bad breath. The jury is still very much out on the effects on cholesterol and kidney function, although these effects may be less to do with the low-carb portion of the diet and the possibility that a diet higher in meat may be higher in sodium or something else that has a detrimental effect.

The low-carb diet is ideal for all

It probably works very well for T2s, and I know Bernstein relentlessly argues that low-carb is good for T1s as well, but arguably the two conditions are completely different. It may be something of a necessity for T2s to low-carb; the same cannot be said of T1s.

None of these things 'negate' low-carbing - they simply 'negate' the implication that low-carbing is a universal solution with a basis in nature. It is NOT a universal solution and as I've illustrated, there's no evidence either way it's a more 'natural' diet that one that's higher in carbs.

What is perhaps more of a place for agreement is that processed foods, which make up much of the standard American and British diet, have detrimental effects on health in the long-term, and the reason for this is a lot more complex than a fat:carbs dichotomy. Generally I work on the principle that if I can't pronounce a particular ingredient or find it in my kitchen, it's something I shouldn't be eating.

[fgummett]

...a place for agreement is that processed foods, which make up much of the standard American and British diet, have detrimental effects on health in the long-term, and the reason for this is a lot more complex than a fat:carbs dichotomy. Generally I work on the principle that if I can't pronounce a particular ingredient or find it in my kitchen, it's something I shouldn't be eating.
100% agreed :)


...we don't really know what the 'original' diet is for humans. We can speculate all we like but the nature of food means we don't find preserved meals from the stone age.While we have little direct evidence of the prehistoric diet we do have midden piles at settlement sites which contain metres-thick layers of sea-shells, bones etc... and bear out the reasonable assumption that as opportunistic, omnivorous, hunter-gatherers we ate pretty much anything that was available locally and in season. We do know that we did not eat anything that needs an industrial process to manufacture such as corn or canola oil, HFCS, hydrogenated trans-fats, finely ground pure white flour and sugar, polished white rice etc... The fossil/skeletal remains show only worn teeth from coarse unprocessed foods but no dental decay/caries (which any dentist will tell you comes from eating sugars). If you also consider what we now take as "fruit" and "vegetables" the varieties and especially the sizes we now have bear little resemblance to what was available in the wild... have you ever seen a wild strawberry..? a fraction of the size and sweetness we now take for granted AND only available in season.

I really trust that the "in-season" argument holds truth... consider that in most temperate zones fruits become ripe in the Fall/Autumn... time to eat plenty and yes lay down a few extra pounds of fat mass... because what comes next..? The long cold Winter months when we need all the stored energy we can muster just to survive.

...people were more likely to work manual jobs, have fewer labour saving devices or sedentary activities to divert them.REDLAN has previously posted research showing that activity has actually increased in recent decades. Watch a documentary of recently discovered (relatively untouched and "natural") tribes in the Amazon... note just how much of the day they are lying around in a hammock or sitting and socialising. I'll agree that with the advent of the industrial revolution and people moving into the cities as a labour force... they worked long hard hours but is that really our natural state? Look to the rest of the animal kingdom for example... and yes we are animals.

The Inuit (or another generic 'tribal' group) do very well on a low-carb/no-carb dietThe Inuit may be an extreme example of human life "on the edge" but they serve to show that as a species we can survive without eating any carbohydrates for months on end. They also spread across the whole of the Arctic -- Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia, Russia, Alaska -- and have been around for at least 5,000 years so I'd hardly say they were just surviving.


The jury is still very much out on the effects on cholesterol and kidney function...I can only speak to my own lipids/cholesterol which are much improved since avoiding refined/concentrated carbs -- an experience shared with many others here on DF.


The low-carb diet is ideal for allDepends how you define "low-carb" which follows on from Joel's post above. It is a relative measure. By eating Real Whole Foods as I subscribe to, you will indeed eat far fewer of the refined/concentrated carbohydrates so prevalent in our modern grocery stores.

I note your concession that low-carb may be more appropriate [or perhaps more of a necessity] for Type 2 D -- I agree. Consider that this at least suggests that refined/concentrated carbs may be considered as a potential cause for Type 2 D... along with dental caries, obesity etc...

[fgummett]

Wild Strawberries:
http://cloopstra.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/wild20strawberries.jpg

Wild Carrot:
http://naturecalendar.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/carrot.jpg

[DeusXM]

If you also consider what we now take as "fruit" and "vegetables" the varieties and especially the sizes we now have bear little resemblance to what was available in the wild... have you ever seen a wild strawberry..? a fraction of the size and sweetness we now take for granted AND only available in season.

Yes but this doesn’t take into account the point that potatoes and rice – starchy carbs – have been present in the human diet longer than recorded history. Fruits may have been indeed a ‘treat’ but the grounds to suggest that starch was the staple of the human diet in the past are as solid as ground to suggest that meat was the staple. If you want to invoke dentistry, I would point out that human beings have severely diminished incisors (which would be used to tear flesh) and have a much higher ratio of molars (which are used to grind starchy matter). Also, the secondary function of saliva (after lubrication) is to begin digestion of starch.


Watch a documentary of recently discovered (relatively untouched and "natural") tribes in the Amazon... note just how much of the day they are lying around in a hammock or sitting and socialising.

I think you’re being naïve here. Leaving aside the issue of whether how an Amazonian tribe lives is even relevant to a discussion of a modern population, don’t forget that a documentary isn’t necessarily accurate. I know you invoke this example frequently but I would point out that firstly, it’s rather hard to film a coherent action sequence in the middle of a rainforest, and there’s also the old maxim that the act of observing changes the object being observed.

I’m also finding it extremely hard to concede the idea that we as a society have not become more sedentary. It simply does not add up with the way in which we live our lives now through the use of technology and then compared with a previous society. I would also suggest that one study put forward by a forum member – a study in which it was admitted the methodology was open to question – does not serve as definitive.


They also spread across the whole of the Arctic -- Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia, Russia, Alaska -- and have been around for at least 5,000 years so I'd hardly say they were just surviving.

Which as I said, any ethnic group that survives with a distinct diet demonstrates that particular diet simply works. It doesn’t mean it is a superior diet. I would also suggest that Inuit metabolism may be a highly inappropriate feature to compare with a generalised population. I would imagine that Inuit metabolism is geared strongly towards the conservation of body heat


I can only speak to my own lipids/cholesterol which are much improved since avoiding refined/concentrated carbs -- an experience shared with many others here on DF.

And as I said, insufficient research has been carried out on this so it’s wide open to debate. And again, we’re on the issue of what is ‘low-carb’ – abolishing all carbs from a diet is very different from not surviving exclusively on pasta, pizza and sugary soft drinks.


By eating Real Whole Foods as I subscribe to, you will indeed eat far fewer of the refined/concentrated carbohydrates so prevalent in our modern grocery stores.

Which doesn’t actually mean low-carb – at least, not in a diabetes/Atkins/Bernstein sense. All you’re doing is eating less processed foods and cooking for yourself, which probably mimics ‘natural’ eating patterns far more than heating stuff up out of a packet or dining at a restaurant.

I note your concession that low-carb may be more appropriate [or perhaps more of a necessity] for Type 2 D -- I agree. Consider that this at least suggests that refined/concentrated carbs may be considered as a potential cause for Type 2 D... along with dental caries, obesity etc...

No, I would put forward that this suggests an excess of refined carbs may play a role in those things, in the same way that an excess of processes meats allegedly causes colonic cancer or an excess of alcohol causes cirrhosis.

[foxl]

There is one myth I will add ... from reading arguments from both of you:

Survival of the fittest only applies to life PRIOR to reproduction. Diabetes, in particular insulin resistance, since it generally develops post-reproductive age (estimated I believe as 15 yrs), is sublethal.

Any survival past that age, for evolutionary purposes, is only icing on the cake. So ... any dietary contributions to survival beyond that age will not be reflected in evolutionary trends.

I generally do believe there are advantages to a lower carb diet for humans than is being espoused by our government agencies. I also do read a lot articles about the consequences of a higher-fat diet ... and a higher-saturated-fat diet. But these studies do remain controversial.

[fgummett]

I disagree Linda... who is supposed to rear all these children born to the 15 year olds who die off soon after procreating? Human babies die without many years of parental care.

A recent theory I heard suggests that we are born premature because any longer in the cooker and our large brains would not make it out the birth-canal.

[foxl]

I disagree Linda... who is supposed to rear all these children born to the 15 year olds who die off soon after procreating? Human babies die without many years of parental care.

A recent theory I heard suggests that we are born premature because any longer in the cooker and our large brains would not make it out the birth-canal.

.... extended family. Older siblings.

This is the genetic viewpoint of evolution ....

I have read that about prematurity of human birth, too (also on an evolutionary basis), an opposing theory is we are born when we are because it leaves our brains more flexible for learning.

Animals born with more developed brains have more hard-wiring, as it were.

Hmmmm ... I wonder where that puts my daughter who was born preemie (under 4 lb at 3 mos even) and with autism spectrum disorder? Is she by that theory MORE-evolved? (The kid jumped into a swimming pool, behind my back, three times before the age of two! Stress on mom!!!!)

[xMenace]

A low-carb diet is the 'original' diet for humans

We'll never know the quantities in our ancestors' diets. It is probably very true they did not worry about fats. When they ate a cow, they ate pretty much the whole cow.

It is safe to say that no refined flours and sugars were part of diets; though sugar canes and other sweet foods probably played a part in many diets.


The diet our grandparents ate while young is far healthier than our diet now because it was high in fat and low in carbs

I don't like this one. I think it's mostly myth. Our grandparents lived in an era of higher and more refined carbohydrates too: white breads, dumplings, cereals, pies, and cakes were all part of my visits to grandma's house.

It is a myth that manual labor protects you from the effects of high-carb diets. It is a known fact that low wage workers have much more physically demanding jobs yet suffer much more obesity. High carb food is cheaper.

The Inuit (or another generic 'tribal' group) do very well on a low-carb/no-carb diet, ergo the low-carb diet is the right one because someone from outside that group also did well on it

Association regardless of the reason is bad science.

Low-carb diets don't have any side-effects

Constapation.
Higher environmental impureties such as phosphates and mercury which are stored in fats.
Higher cancer risks is a myth.
Kidney risk is a myth.
Cholesterol is bad for you is a myth
High fat causes obesity is a myth
LDLs may increase may not be a myth.

The low-carb diet is ideal for all

It probably is ideal for all, but we'll never know this for sure in our lifetimes.


------------

Others include

You have less energy on a low-carb diet


You lose cognitive ability on a low-carb diet


I have no answers for these.

[fgummett]

Survival of the fittest only applies to life PRIOR to reproduction. Diabetes, in particular insulin resistance, since it generally develops post-reproductive age (estimated I believe as 15 yrs), is sublethal.

Any survival past that age, for evolutionary purposes, is only icing on the cake. So ... any dietary contributions to survival beyond that age will not be reflected in evolutionary trends.I'm still not buying this Linda... it is not as if we are simple creatures of instinct only... what about passing down the wisdom and technology? Consider the Matriarch of an Elephant family group... she lives well beyond her initial reproductive years and yet without her knowledge and experience -- gained over many, many seasons -- it is unlikely the group would survive. Isn't intelligence and the application of experience an adaptation?

[foxl]

You do not have to.

Read any genetics textbook.

[butterflykisses]

In this discussion, what is considered "low carb" and what would a typical days meals include? Are we speaking of just grains? Starchy vegetables?

There are studies that show people in areas who live to be 100+ AND healthy have certain things in common.(Blue Zones) They eat vegetables and fruit regularly and occasionally meat. They don't really "exercise" as in getting on a treadmill, but don't sit in front of a TV...or computer all day either.:eek: The "chores" of daily life keep them moving throughout the day. For instance they might grind grain by hand to prepare and eat. (no highly processed grains here!) They grow and tend gardens. They walk to where they need to go.

What our ancestors ate I am sure depended on what was available, but what is available to us is not always what is best for us...that's apparent when considering that foods that are highly processed, filled with HFCS, hydrogenated oils and ingredients hard to pronounce are cheap and convenient.

[xMenace]

In this discussion, what is considered "low carb" and what would a typical days meals include? Are we speaking of just grains? Starchy vegetables?


That is a good question that usually gets overlooked. The glycemic index is IMO also very important. Quantity is basically GI_load. Factors of each play a part, and I'm sure you can't do either successfully independantly. I see the ADA and food guide recommendations as too much GI-load-wise but good GI-wise. I am doing ok GI-load-wise but I still struggle GI-wise.

Does that make sense?

[foxl]

I wish low GI foods worked for me -- they DON'T!

[notme]

I wish low GI foods worked for me -- they DON'T!


GI definitely works for me. Odd how we are all so different.

[foxl]

Well, Nancy, you know, I am beginning to think a bit of insulin would help, in my case! :T

[yannah]

the whole GI food thing, did not work for me.

I do not spend much time thinking of this topic.

low carbs straightened me all out.

I am way thinner, off my statin and bs is in control on half my meds.

its been a year. I am not lethargic, forgetful or constipated.

I seem pretty good.

I would rather take the risk, if anyone can prove there is one, with this, than with all the other stuff.

[notme]

the whole GI food thing, did not work for me.

I do not spend much time thinking of this topic.

low carbs straightened me all out.

I am way thinner, off my statin and bs is in control on half my meds.

its been a year. I am not lethargic, forgetful or constipated.

I seem pretty good.

I would rather take the risk, if anyone can prove there is one, with this, than with all the other stuff.


Once again Yannah, it is a matter of what you are calling "low carb". That is a broad term that seems to be encompassing a lot of different types of foods.

I am thrilled you are doing so well. As a type 2, your blood sugar will definitely be improved with your dramatic weight loss. Congrats...

[Chef Barrae]

Someone posted that a low-carb diet is ideal for everyone. This is absolutely not true and I vehemently disagree with this fallacy. I, for one, as a type 2 diabetic produce more BG when I do not consume the proper amount of carbohydrates. My body compensates for the lack of carbs, which results in a higher level of BG. I tried your low-carbing idea for a week and it only resulted in my BG going well over 300 and staying there and even hitting over 400 at one point. This is not a success in my books. Everyone is different and to say that a low-carb diet is ideal for everyone is just plain wrong. What works for some may not work for others. This idea is potentially deadly for some people. I do not believe that the American Diabete Association is out to get us and try to kill diabetics with a high carb diet. That is a huge misguided, ignorant statement. What may have worked for our ancient ancestors does not mean it will work for us now as we have undergone genetic changes and environmental changes and lifestyle changes. Our nutritional needs are far different than our ancient ancestors were unless you want to go back to hunting and gathering and living in a cave. And even then, what was the average life span, 25? I am darned angry right now about this low-carbing and the damage it has done to me in the past week. I tried your suggestions, just to be fair and compare it to what I believe about moderate-low carbs as was recommended by a nutritionist to me, and you were very wrong. I will go back to my ideal program that works for me of about 45 grams of carb with each meal. Portion control is the key. Not only does it bring my BG down but it also has the benefit of weight loss in a slow and careful manner. I am sorry if I seem to be coming down hard here but like I said, this low-carbing almost put me over the edge and I was consuming about 40 to 45 grams of carbs per day. Again, it may work for some but it does not work for all so please refrain from saying it does. Thank you.

[Granny Shanny]

You could use a refresher on intent vs. perception.
I also think you need to find that "someone" who posted and give us the link for it, please. Your opening statement is so wonderfully vague that it gives you carte blanche to go on your little rant, and I think none of here truly deserve your little dish of venom.

There is a lot of support among diabetes patients for trying a regimen lower in carbohydrates to find out if it helps lower their blood glucose levels. It is nobody's INTENT here to say that any of it works for EVERYONE. That is your PERCEPTION, and we get that you disagree. We GOT IT the minute you stepped into this milieu.

You have made your position clear from your very first post. What interests me is why, if you'd already found what works for you, would you even bother to take the lower carb step, and then go off half-cocked blaming us for what happened?

We appreciate your culinary expertise, but apparently your metabolism functions at a lot higher rate than many of us, so I would greatly appreciate if you would just continue the higher carb menus if it works for you, and stop berating the rest of us who aren't so lucky as you in being able to tolerate it.

[Chef Barrae]

The low-carb diet is ideal for all

It probably is ideal for all, but we'll never know this for sure in our lifetimes.

You could use a refresher on intent vs. perception.
I also think you need to find that "someone" who posted and give us the link for it, please. Your opening statement is so wonderfully vague that it gives you carte blanche to go on your little rant, and I think none of here truly deserve your little dish of venom.

There is a lot of support among diabetes patients for trying a regimen lower in carbohydrates to find out if it helps lower their blood glucose levels. It is nobody's INTENT here to say that any of it works for EVERYONE. That is your PERCEPTION, and we get that you disagree. We GOT IT the minute you stepped into this milieu.

You have made your position clear from your very first post. What interests me is why, if you'd already found what works for you, would you even bother to take the lower carb step, and then go off half-cocked blaming us for what happened?

We appreciate your culinary expertise, but apparently your metabolism functions at a lot higher rate than many of us, so I would greatly appreciate if you would just continue the higher carb menus if it works for you, and stop berating the rest of us who aren't so lucky as you in being able to tolerate it.

Hardly a perception or assumption on my part. All I am saying is that it is wrong to assume that such drastic low-carbing works for everyone. There is no universal plan that works for every diabetic. If there was then diabetes would be defeated. I am simply saying that I tried your method, you might say as a scientific style comparision, and it was totally wrong for me. I know what works for me. One of the first things I was told on this forum is that every diabetic is different. I am restating the first lesson I learned here as it is very sage advice. Every diabetic is different. And no, I do not have a fast metabolism at all. I am not blaming anyone here for my results but rather just pointing out that everyone is different and to make such a blanket statement about low-carbing is not right. I am responsible for my own body and no one else is. No one forced me to try your ideas. But, they did not work for me. I prefer a well balanced, nutritionally sound eating plan. That is what works for me. If this extreme low carbing works for you, then that's great for you and you should continue to do it. It is a huge failure for me and probably other people as well.

[foxl]

Before there was Taubes,

Before there was Atkins,

Before there was Bernstein ...

There was Elizabeth Evans Hughes and the senior Dr. Joslin.

Elizabeth Evans hughes - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS328&q=Elizabeth+Evans+hughes&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)

She lived for FIVE years on a terribly restricted diet, until insulin was isolated.

[Granny Shanny]

Sorry, but XMenace isn't the one who said that. He responded to it. You need to look harder and give us the link, please.

[Chef Barrae]

Before there was Taubes,

Before there was Atkins,

Before there was Bernstein ...

There was Elizabeth Evans Hughes and the senior Dr. Joslin.

Elizabeth Evans hughes - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS328&q=Elizabeth+Evans+hughes&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)

She lived for FIVE years on a terribly restricted diet, until insulin was isolated.



Interesting reading, thanks. I will presume that Elizabeth Hughes was a type 1 diabetic then, as the information did not mention it and she was a child. Juvenile diabetes, type 1, has a much different approach than type 2 has. I also have to add that type 2 diabetes was probably a rare occurance in the 1920's when she was alive. Type 1 and type 2 are both diabetes but they are so very different. A type 2 can be "cured" with proper diet, exercise and weight loss and can be medication free, whereas a type 1 is a lifetime battle. Type 2 diabetes has become one of the major health concerns in modern times because we have become an obese nation in general and people often make the wrong choices in eating. It may not be entirely their fault as we are constantly bombarded by the media with food advertisments and not nutritional facts. Thanks again for the interesting info. I appreciate it.

[Chef Barrae]

There's a few that tend to go around and aren't always addressed.

A low-carb diet is the 'original' diet for humans

In short, we don't really know what the 'original' diet is for humans. We can speculate all we like but the nature of food means we don't find preserved meals from the stone age. Some people believe we ate lots of meat and fat because of the seasonality of fruit, veg and grain and the evidence of animal bones in caves. Others believe that the amount of work required to hunt animals, the mental dimorphism between men and women, the predominantly herbivorous/omnivorous nature of the homo genus and evidence of the cultivation of rice and potatoes long before an established 'civilisation' suggest otherwise. In the absence of definitive proof either way, this question is seriously open to debate.

The diet our grandparents ate while young is far healthier than our diet now because it was high in fat and low in carbs

This doesn't take into account the reality that people were more likely to work manual jobs, have fewer labour saving devices or sedentary activities to divert them. It also doesn't take into account other elements of food such as additives, or the increased availability of food today, or portion sizes. Furthermore, it's dubious to say carbs didn't form a significant part of recent historical diets - after all, the Irish Potato Famine was a disaster, and recall the devastation wreaked by the Corn Laws.

The Inuit (or another generic 'tribal' group) do very well on a low-carb/no-carb diet, ergo the low-carb diet is the right one because someone from outside that group also did well on it

For every group that does well on low-carb, there's another group that eats lots of carbs and does very well, such as pretty much the whole of Asia. There's also wildly conflicting studies that say either carbs or fat cause heart disease to the point it's impossible to make definitive statement. The best you can draw from this is either that each diet used by an established ethnic group simply 'works' (since they survive), that there are variances between different ethnic groups in terms of metabolism, or there are factors beyond simply diet that influence the effect your food has on you.

Low-carb diets don't have any side-effects

In the popular imagination (and possibly reality), ketosis, the end result of low-carbing, results in greasy skin and bad breath. The jury is still very much out on the effects on cholesterol and kidney function, although these effects may be less to do with the low-carb portion of the diet and the possibility that a diet higher in meat may be higher in sodium or something else that has a detrimental effect.

The low-carb diet is ideal for all

It probably works very well for T2s, and I know Bernstein relentlessly argues that low-carb is good for T1s as well, but arguably the two conditions are completely different. It may be something of a necessity for T2s to low-carb; the same cannot be said of T1s.

None of these things 'negate' low-carbing - they simply 'negate' the implication that low-carbing is a universal solution with a basis in nature. It is NOT a universal solution and as I've illustrated, there's no evidence either way it's a more 'natural' diet that one that's higher in carbs.

What is perhaps more of a place for agreement is that processed foods, which make up much of the standard American and British diet, have detrimental effects on health in the long-term, and the reason for this is a lot more complex than a fat:carbs dichotomy. Generally I work on the principle that if I can't pronounce a particular ingredient or find it in my kitchen, it's something I shouldn't be eating.

Sorry, but XMenace isn't the one who said that. He responded to it. You need to look harder and give us the link, please.

You are right Granny, he was responding to the above mentioned post. None the less, he did say that low-carbing was ideal for all and that is indisputable. And it is wrong. Like I have said many times now, if it works for you, great. But it is not for everyone and I wish that caveat would appear more often in the low-carb postings.

[foxl]

Chef ... re: ELizabeth Evans Hughes: it DOES NOT MATTER. She was a type 1 before insulin.

She lived for FIVE YEARS on a restricted diet until insulin became available. And she lived to be 74.

And no, I am sorry but T2D is not CURED.

[Chef Barrae]

Chef ... re: ELizabeth Evans Hughes: it DOES NOT MATTER. She was a type 1 before insulin.

She lived for FIVE YEARS on a restricted diet until insulin became available. And she lived to be 74.

And no, I am sorry but T2D is not CURED.

I wrote "cured" as such to indicate that it was more sarcasim than fact. But, it is a true fact that if a T2 does loose the weight and eat a properly balanced diet and exercises then they can easily be taken off of all meds because their BG can be under complete control by those achievements. I know this as a personal fact.

Perhaps you would like to read this from Wiki about Elizabeth Hughes. Apparently, the strict diet she was put on was a failure and she was doing very poorly until she was taken to Canada to recieve her insulin treatments.


Biography

[edit] Early life and education
Elizabeth Hughes was born August 19, 1907 in the New York State Executive Mansion in Albany, New York, to Antoinette Carter and Charles Evans Hughes, who was Governor of New York at the time of her birth.

Elizabeth developed diabetes in 1919 at age 11. She was treated initially by Dr. F.M. Allen at his special clinic, the Physiatric Institute in Morristown, New Jersey. Dr. Allen put Elizabeth on a strict diet and continued to monitor her condition over the next three years while she lived at home with a private nurse.

By the winter of 1921/22 her health was deteriorating seriously. In 1922 her mother contacted Canadian doctor Frederick Banting in Toronto. Elizabeth came to Toronto with her mother in August 1922 and began receiving insulin from Dr. Banting.[1]

Elizabeth's health continued to improve with insulin treatment. She returned to school in 1923 and graduated from Barnard College in 1929.

...yes, she went on to live a normal life and her friends didn't even know she was a diabetic and she died at age 73. But I think that this actually is making my point, in that the strict diet she was put on by Dr. Allen was not successful and she was deteriorating and most likely would have died without the insulin treatments. Unless of course, Dr. Allen's strict diet is not the diet you are referring to, in which case I would love to read more about what you mean and would appreciate a link to read further about your point.

[notme]

This thread is starting to get out of control. The original topic was a hot button to begin with and it seems to be spiraling out of control.

Please use your filters and check your posts twice before hitting the submit button.

Please folks, remember that nobody is 100% correct 100% of the time. Most of us can only use personal experience as an indicator of what works. We are all different. ;)

[foxl]

FAILED? What at the time was the average life expectancy after diagnosis, without insulin? ... I hope you will read some other references because while she was terribly ill, she was still alive.

Sorry Nancy posted after you. And logging off ...

[Chef Barrae]

This thread is starting to get out of control. The original topic was a hot button to begin with and it seems to be spiraling out of control.

Please use your filters and check your posts twice before hitting the submit button.

Please folks, remember that nobody is 100% correct 100% of the time. Most of us can only use personal experience as an indicator of what works. We are all different. ;)

Frankly, I think it has been a good, healthy debate showing the main topic has different sides. You are the only one who is 100% correct in your statement that no one is 100% correct and that our personal experience is what should guide each of us as we are all different. Thank you for your valuable insight in the conversation.

[plattb1]

I wrote "cured" as such to indicate that it was more sarcasim than fact. But, it is a true fact that if a T2 does loose the weight and eat a properly balanced diet and exercises then they can easily be taken off of all meds because their BG can be under complete control by those achievements. I know this as a personal fact.

Perhaps you would like to read this from Wiki about Elizabeth Hughes. Apparently, the strict diet she was put on was a failure and she was doing very poorly until she was taken to Canada to recieve her insulin treatments.


Biography

[edit] Early life and education
Elizabeth Hughes was born August 19, 1907 in the New York State Executive Mansion in Albany, New York, to Antoinette Carter and Charles Evans Hughes, who was Governor of New York at the time of her birth.

Elizabeth developed diabetes in 1919 at age 11. She was treated initially by Dr. F.M. Allen at his special clinic, the Physiatric Institute in Morristown, New Jersey. Dr. Allen put Elizabeth on a strict diet and continued to monitor her condition over the next three years while she lived at home with a private nurse.

By the winter of 1921/22 her health was deteriorating seriously. In 1922 her mother contacted Canadian doctor Frederick Banting in Toronto. Elizabeth came to Toronto with her mother in August 1922 and began receiving insulin from Dr. Banting.[1]

Elizabeth's health continued to improve with insulin treatment. She returned to school in 1923 and graduated from Barnard College in 1929.

...yes, she went on to live a normal life and her friends didn't even know she was a diabetic and she died at age 73. But I think that this actually is making my point, in that the strict diet she was put on by Dr. Allen was not successful and she was deteriorating and most likely would have died without the insulin treatments. Unless of course, Dr. Allen's strict diet is not the diet you are referring to, in which case I would love to read more about what you mean and would appreciate a link to read further about your point.
Chef, you are making the same mistake so many others do. One does not have to be overweight or obese or sedentary to be diabetic. It may often be the case, but is not always the case, even with T2. So, if I lose weight (& become anorexic in the process because I would have to be) - are you trying to say that I can stop taking all these meds? Because I know better than that!

Each of us can only speak to our personal experience & observations about what works. For myself, in 10 years of trying to get my BG under control, a low carb diet is the only thing that has worked. Metformin helped initially, but over time, I had to increase the dose. Other meds either had no effect or caused me to have unbearable lows. Insulin has helped, but not enough.

A low carb diet is working. While your experience may be different, it doesn't mean it can be generalized to all diabetics, or even all T2 diabetics - any more than mine can be.

[plattb1]

Chef, you are making the same mistake so many others do. One does not have to be overweight or obese or sedentary to be diabetic. It may often be the case, but is not always the case, even with T2. So, if I lose weight (& become anorexic in the process because I would have to be) - are you trying to say that I can stop taking all these meds? Because I know better than that!

Each of us can only speak to our personal experience & observations about what works. For myself, in 10 years of trying to get my BG under control, a low carb diet is the only thing that has worked. Metformin helped initially, but over time, I had to increase the dose. Other meds either had no effect or caused me to have unbearable lows. Insulin has helped, but not enough.

A low carb diet is working. While your experience may be different, it doesn't mean it can be generalized to all diabetics, or even all T2 diabetics - any more than mine can be.
And, sorry, Nancy, I was trying to phrase my post objectively & didn't see your request before submitting.

[yannah]

Once again Yannah, it is a matter of what you are calling "low carb". That is a broad term that seems to be encompassing a lot of different types of foods.

I am thrilled you are doing so well. As a type 2, your blood sugar will definitely be improved with your dramatic weight loss. Congrats...

I am under 50 a day, usually way under.

[Chef Barrae]

Chef, you are making the same mistake so many others do. One does not have to be overweight or obese or sedentary to be diabetic. It may often be the case, but is not always the case, even with T2. So, if I lose weight (& become anorexic in the process because I would have to be) - are you trying to say that I can stop taking all these meds? Because I know better than that!

Each of us can only speak to our personal experience & observations about what works. For myself, in 10 years of trying to get my BG under control, a low carb diet is the only thing that has worked. Metformin helped initially, but over time, I had to increase the dose. Other meds either had no effect or caused me to have unbearable lows. Insulin has helped, but not enough.

A low carb diet is working. While your experience may be different, it doesn't mean it can be generalized to all diabetics, or even all T2 diabetics - any more than mine can be.

And I completely agree with you, each one of us is different and we must find what works for us. I have mentioned that frequently and in fact, that was my point in my original post on this thread.

[IggyDalrymple]

Back in the 80s, I was a regular subscriber to Dr Atkins' newsletter, and continued to subscribe until he stopped writing it. I read all his books. When I tried the Atkins diet, I would lose a quick 15 or 20 lbs and then plateau. I employed all of Dr Atkins' suggestions to break through the plateau, to no avail. I felt bad on the Atkins diet. My business partner on the other hand had great success with the Atkins diet and lost 60 or 70 lbs. When I last heard, the rumor was that my former business partner was suffering from severe cardiac problems and had undergone open heart surgery.

Meanwhile, I learned that I was diabetic. After another 5 or 6 years of trying to lose weight, I discovered Dr Gabe Mirkin's radio show. I found my solution with the Mirkin diet. Avoidance of most processed foods, especially processed carbs. Strict avoidance of all bread, crackers, pasta, anything made with flour, and avoidance of all sugar. I eat whole intact grains (usually oats groats and hull-less barley), boiling them to make a porridge with raw berries added. The porridge is one meal and the other is raw salad with cold ocean fish, plus snack on fruit and nuts and a little yogurt. I very rarely eat any red meat, but do on social occasions. Have lost 70 lbs, blood pressure is good and A1C is always under 6. I also follow Mirkins advice and get plenty of exercise, walking/running 3 miles, 2 to 4 times a week. I am age 70. Dr Mirkin, at age 75, bicycles over 250 miles a week, consuming over 5,000 calories/day.

I have dear friends on the low-carb diet and I hope they're not making a serious mistake. Remember, their paleo-heroes rarely made it past middle age.

[It Ain't Over]

You lose cognitive ability on a low-carb diet

Ok, so what was the question?:confused:

[matingara]

You lose cognitive ability on a low-carb diet

Ok, so what was the question?:confused:

what? what is this topic about again. the goats distracted me....

[matingara]

i think a lot of the problem is RELATIVE.

for most people in today's world anything less than about 1,000,000 carbs per day is considered "low carb". :)

that is why we are getting beaten up here for daring to suggest that people even consider reducing consumption of the marvellous wonder carbs that are blessed by the all knowing and powerful Oz (or did i mean "the media"???).

seriously, if someone starts their day with orange juice, toast, cereal, jelly and a banana. they would be applauded for a healthy breakfast. follow that with a wholemeal blueberry muffin for morning tea. follow that with a salad roll for lunch and a couple of apples. afternoon tea and maybe a treat of a bag of potato chips.

go home end have a big bowl of wholemeal pasta, beef sauce and a salad.

followed by fruit salad for dessert.

show that diet to any dietitian and you would be applauded for your marvellous, model diet.

but - how many carbs is it??? i make that at about 430 grams??? am i off by far do you think???

wow!!! that is ridiculous. 430g of carbs and it looks like a model diet from the "homepage of the synchronized idiots".

so let us be controversial and say reduce the carbs by 75% - a HUGE, WHOPPING 75%!!!!!!!!!! you would get your daily intake down to just over 100g. still high in carbs - but OK - or at least better.

so - if i can show by this dopey example that "By suggesting that you cut down the carbs in a dietitians dream day by 75%" - you get somewhere near something that is almost healthy. then you can understand that if we suggest going down to 50g of carbs per day - that people are going to call us whackos.

that is the problem. it is relative - you see...

Personally, i think I make a lot of sense here. well done me. non-controversial. to the point. well written.

:)

[Morris "Type 1"]

You have less energy on a low-carb diet


You lose cognitive ability on a low-carb diet


I have no answers for these.


I found myself having far more energy with low carbing, concentration is perfectly fine too. Only time it isn't good, is when I accidentally do something to raise my BG's.

I do however notice the smell of fish in my urine at times, lol. I like tuna a lot.

[butterflykisses]

Personally, i think I make a lot of sense here. well done me. non-controversial. to the point. well written.

:)

Well, although I don't agree with the AMOUNT of food you quoted as being a dietitians dream...it made perfect sense to me. ;)

[matingara]

Well, although I don't agree with the AMOUNT of food you quoted as being a dietitians dream...it made perfect sense to me. ;)

hey all i want is some love and recognition!!! when you say amount - do you mean the amount of carbs i estimated or the amount of food (calorie-wise) that i suggested???

:)

[Granny Shanny]

Personally, i think I make a lot of sense here. well done me. non-controversial. to the point. well written.

:)

So stand still while I pin a rose on ya! http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b202/sneezytwo/clap.gif http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b202/sneezytwo/clap.gif http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b202/sneezytwo/clap.gif

[fgummett]

Personally, i think I make a lot of sense here. well done me. non-controversial. to the point. well written.You did Joel... I especially appreciate the "healthy" breakfast... now there's a myth for ya! :smarty:

[butterflykisses]

Personally, i think I make a lot of sense here. well done me. non-controversial. to the point. well written.

:)

hey all i want is some love and recognition!!! when you say amount - do you mean the amount of carbs i estimated or the amount of food (calorie-wise) that i suggested???

:)
The amount of food. You're the man! ;)

[kmac]

I found my solution with the Mirkin diet. Avoidance of most processed foods, especially processed carbs. Strict avoidance of all bread, crackers, pasta, anything made with flour, and avoidance of all sugar. I eat whole intact grains (usually oats groats and hull-less barley), boiling them to make a porridge with raw berries added. The porridge is one meal and the other is raw salad with cold ocean fish, plus snack on fruit and nuts and a little yogurt. I very rarely eat any red meat, but do on social occasions. Have lost 70 lbs, blood pressure is good and A1C is always under 6. I also follow Mirkins advice and get plenty of exercise, walking/running 3 miles, 2 to 4 times a week. I am age 70. Dr Mirkin, at age 75, bicycles over 250 miles a week, consuming over 5,000 calories/day.

I have dear friends on the low-carb diet and I hope they're not making a serious mistake. Remember, their paleo-heroes rarely made it past middle age.

Congratulations on your weight loss and health improvement.

I researched this diet a little and I wonder if I found the right one. I found Diana Mirkin talking about the DASH diet to control blood pressure, cholestoral and diabetes. Do you eat 8 servings of whole grains on your diet? That sounds a lot. Or do you only eat the foods mentioned above.The oither aspects of the diet sound very healthy and worth investigating but I am afraid of all that grain. I almost never eat any grain products right now. Please elaborate on your eating plan a bit.

Kathi

[IggyDalrymple]

Congratulations on your weight loss and health improvement.

I researched this diet a little and I wonder if I found the right one. I found Diana Mirkin talking about the DASH diet to control blood pressure, cholestoral and diabetes. Do you eat 8 servings of whole grains on your diet? That sounds a lot. Or do you only eat the foods mentioned above.The oither aspects of the diet sound very healthy and worth investigating but I am afraid of all that grain. I almost never eat any grain products right now. Please elaborate on your eating plan a bit.

KathiI only eat about 1 1/2 cups of my oats/barley porridge, with frozen 'TripleBerries' added, along with 1/8 cup of freshly ground flax. All total, it's about 2 cups. Don't know how many servings that is equal to. At my level of exercise and metabolism, I have to limit my intake in order to maintain my weight. I do pick up quite a few additional calories from fruit, nuts, and salad oil. Generally my only animal protein is from canned mackerel, which I add to my salad.

And I also drink a huge (1 qt) mug of hot cocoa each day, sweetened with stevia (sip on it all day). I dissolve some fruit and berry extracts in 1 oz of 190 proof Everclear, which I also add to the cocoa. Since adding the alcohol, plus supplementing with niacin, my HDL has doubled from under 40 to 80.


I also follow Dr William Davis' Since Davis is very anti-wheat, I have excluded all of that grain, even in whole unprocessed form.

[kmac]

Thank you for your answer. I will investigate the link you provided further and you have given me a lot to think about. I am sincerely interested in learning more about different diets that help people improve their health while controling BG.

I did not mention that the Diana Mirkin videos were excellent and explained the concept of their diet really well along with easy and tasty looking recipes. Many of the foods were pretty low carb as well aside for the recommendation for all of the grain servings. I think from what you have said that I may try it after more investigation but just be careful with the amount of grain and choices of fruit and veg. Then as everyone says test, test, test. She suggests that you can make a difference in your health in two weeks.

Thanks again for sharing some of your secrets to success.

Kathi

[HelenM]

There's a few that tend to go around and aren't always addressed.

A low-carb diet is the 'original' diet for humans

In short, we don't really know what the 'original' diet is for humans. We can speculate all we like but the nature of food means we don't find preserved meals from the stone age. Some people believe we ate lots of meat and fat because of the seasonality of fruit, veg and grain and the evidence of animal bones in caves. Others believe that the amount of work required to hunt animals, the mental dimorphism between men and women, the predominantly herbivorous/omnivorous nature of the homo genus and evidence of the cultivation of rice and potatoes long before an established 'civilisation' suggest otherwise. In the absence of definitive proof either way, this question is seriously open to debate.



The Inuit (or another generic 'tribal' group) do very well on a low-carb/no-carb diet, ergo the low-carb diet is the right one because someone from outside that group also did well on it

For every group that does well on low-carb, there's another group that eats lots of carbs and does very well, such as pretty much the whole of Asia. There's also wildly conflicting studies that say either carbs or fat cause heart disease to the point it's impossible to make definitive statement. The best you can draw from this is either that each diet used by an established ethnic group simply 'works' (since they survive), that there are variances between different ethnic groups in terms of metabolism, or there are factors beyond simply diet that influence the effect your food has on you.

.



.
It appears that different populations may have well have evolved differently in their ability to digest starch. Perhaps this is why the Inuits manage well on their diet but other groups function well on a high starch diet.
The amylase found in saliva is what starts to break down starch into its constituents, and will break large particles of insoluble starch to soluble starches.
It appears that the gene for salivary amylase may have differentially evolved. Some groups have far more copies of the gene than others. Subjects from some areas with a traditional high starch diet have more copies of the gene than those from areas with a low starch diet
'The proportion of individuals from the combined high-starch sample with at least six AMY1 copies(70%) was nearly two times greater than that for low-starch populations
(37%).'

Theres a lot of detail, and its too complex to summarise in a few words. Its an interesting study to read(though a bit difficult in parts for the non specialist)
Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation
George H. Perry et al
Nat Genet. 2007 October; 39(10): 1256–1260.

there is also further disussion in the PDF referenced here.
(I can't do a direct reference but its the reading for 21-22 January
Courses (http://people.bu.edu/msoren/BI515.html)

[Allison]

At the risk of sounding naive...I just have one observation to make.

There really is no right or wrong when it comes to low carbing. For some it is ideal for some it is not. For instance I never low carbed EVER before DX. My best friend (who is not diabetic) has done low carb diets over the years though. None of them ever worked out for her. She would feel sluggish and run down and have bathroom issues. A few times she gained rather than lost. She stuck to her plan well and did nothing out of the ordinary. It just didn't work for HER body-type.

Me however, I start low carbing and 3 months in I was down 31 pounds. Its been 5 months now and I'm down 46. Steady weight loss.

My belief is that some body types NEED a low carb diet and some do not. Its all in the away each individual person's genetics have evolved.

[notme]

At the risk of sounding naive...I just have one observation to make.

There really is no right or wrong when it comes to low carbing. For some it is ideal for some it is not. For instance I never low carbed EVER before DX. My best friend (who is not diabetic) has done low carb diets over the years though. None of them ever worked out for her. She would feel sluggish and run down and have bathroom issues. A few times she gained rather than lost. She stuck to her plan well and did nothing out of the ordinary. It just didn't work for HER body-type.

Me however, I start low carbing and 3 months in I was down 31 pounds. Its been 5 months now and I'm down 46. Steady weight loss.

My belief is that some body types NEED a low carb diet and some do not. Its all in the away each individual person's genetics have evolved.



We are all different, but we are not all drastically different. I believe that most if it depends on what you consider "low carb" and what you consider a reasonable diet. Low carb means different things to different people. If your friend was eating nothing but steak, butter, cream and bacon, odds are she couldn't lose. If you were eating some of those foods, but also a large amount of fresh veggies, green salads and berries and nuts, you probably will have better luck.

Thanks for your imput. :)

[Allison]

We are all different, but we are not all drastically different. I believe that most if it depends on what you consider "low carb" and what you consider a reasonable diet. Low carb means different things to different people. If your friend was eating nothing but steak, butter, cream and bacon, odds are she couldn't lose. If you were eating some of those foods, but also a large amount of fresh veggies, green salads and berries and nuts, you probably will have better luck.

Thanks for your imput. :)


That's what is puzzling to both of us. I'm following the same guidelines for low carbing that she was. In fact she was eating more veggies than I am now, mostly because she's a bigger raw veggie fan than I am and had a lot to choose from.
We've discussed this many times and still don't have any conclusion other than some people handle low carbing better than others. She was also exercising at that point regularly as well. She's since went on to have lap band surgery and at first had terrific results losing a total of 120lbs. She got pregnant 2 years after surgery and has had nothing but complications since. She's seriously considering having it removed.

[notme]

If your friend was exercising, there is a good reason to believe that she may have been adding muscle mass and that will definitely weight more than fat. I am sorry to hear your friend is having troubles. I hope she gets the lap band removed and can gain back her good health. So frustrating.

[conguitos]

Personally, i think I make a lot of sense here. well done me. non-controversial. to the point. well written.

:)

Yes, you did. The Novonordisk site promotes such a diet... wonder why...

Personally I've gone to a raw food (vegetals), high fat diet. Eating what I believe is a human diet. Roots, wild berries, nuts, oils, lots of meat, fish, eggs, veggies.

I think I overdid it with the raw veggies, since the my BG levels were plummeting to the point that I was regurarly measuring levels below 4, below 3 I really begin to feel bad.

Today I ate a whole white chocolate (around 100gr) et voilá, I'm still diabetic, 9.1 after 1 hour and 30 minutes, well months ago I would go to >14, still an improvement.

What I've noticed for me: eating late in the afternoon, not so good, eating in the night is a no-no, eating three times a day is bad for me, eating two times is also bad (too low) eating once but a lot seems to be the best for me, then I can keep my numbers around 4 to 6 the whole time.

My last visit to the doc was saddeding, the man was extremely frustrated with his colleagues, he wants to promote the low carb diet as a valid therapy for diabetics (all types), but he gets loughed out by them at symposia.

He asked me if it was logical, the low carb diet for diabetics, I told him that my thought is that it is logical for every human that can afford it. "We're no cows!" he told, "they have 4 stomachs to process all those grasses, cereals, carbs, etc.."

What works for me is avoiding all the stuff that raw is mildly to highly toxic, like potatoes or beans or everything that contains gluten, glutamate or lactose (excepting the occasional chocolate, then I'll have to cope with the consequences for 2 to 4 days...).

I'm baffled about the results, as I don't do regular exercise anymore and do not take any supplementations, it looks like those raw veggies work wonders for me.

For the myths about the low carb diet, just my 2c

Meat is bad
Myth, I believe that fatty meat is one of the healthiest foods around.

You need carbs
Myth, I believe the human body can produce enough glucose from proteins even for acute situations, perhaps not as effectively as a gepard for short energy bursts...

You lose hair
True, at least on me, but it seems to come back..

You're always tired (I've read that somewhere)
Myth, I don't even feel tired if I don't eat for 1 day, quite the opposite.

Ketosis is bad
Myth, i believe that ketosis is the natural state for the human organism

Ketosis is the same as Ketoacidosis
Myth

[notme]

Myth? According to whom?

I understand where you are coming from conquitos, I eat a fairly raw diet minus the meat. However, you need to be careful about what you call a myth and what is proven fact. We are all here to learn but we need to be careful how certain we are about things.

[Granny Shanny]

Relative to myths being perpetrated on this forum, Conguitos is certainly not the only (allegedly) guilty party! Geez!

[conguitos]

Myth? According to whom?

I understand where you are coming from conquitos, I eat a fairly raw diet minus the meat. However, you need to be careful about what you call a myth and what is proven fact. We are all here to learn but we need to be careful how certain we are about things.

Are you referring to the "meat is bad" statement?

If so, then it's according to me and what I observe daily while measuring myself, the best, for me, being very fattty meat. There I guide myself by the inuit diet.

I've understood that fat is pretty straight forward for the human metabolism, it can be absorbed almost 1 to 1. What seems to be very nocive is the combination of fat and metabolizable carbs.

If you mean it in a broader sense, then the only one that I can assure you that is really a myth is the "ketosis is the same as ketoacidosis" statement, for the rest it is what I believe is correct after reading quite an amount of stuff about human biochemistry and on me it seems to work, just my 2c.

[notme]

Relative to myths being perpetrated on this forum, Conguitos is certainly not the only (allegedly) guilty party! Geez!

Thank you Granny, I appreciate that fact. However, in this thread, that was the case.

[notme]

Are you referring to the "meat is bad" statement?

If so, then it's according to me and what I observe daily while measuring myself, the best, for me, being very fattty meat. There I guide myself by the inuit diet.

I've understood that fat is pretty straight forward for the human metabolism, it can be absorbed almost 1 to 1. What seems to be very nocive is the combination of fat and metabolizable carbs.

If you mean it in a broader sense, then the only one that I can assure you that is really a myth is the "ketosis is the same as ketoacidosis" statement, for the rest it is what I believe is correct after reading quite an amount of stuff about human biochemistry and on me it seems to work, just my 2c.


"Seems to work" is what I am referring to, conquitos. Since most of us on this site are not inuit, I would definitely try to stick to the facts we are sure of and not call any one dietary choice a myth.

I certainly like hearing what others are doing and trying and love to read any new studies. I just don't think any of us are 100% certain when it comes to diet and we are all searching for answers that are best for us. It concerns me when people are so certain about a radical diet choice or calling what others are doing a myth.

Like I said. I tend to follow a more raw type diet. I dont' eat red meat or chicken. I do eat certain types of fish. That is my choice and it is working for me. It may not work for others.

[DeusXM]

Ketosis is bad
Myth, i believe that ketosis is the natural state for the human organism

I'd say it's a natural state, rather than the natural state. Fat stored in the human body serves a few purpose - insulation, protection, and energy storage. Fat is essentially a back-up energy source and is the last energy source to be metabolised for evolutionary reasons, which is why it can be difficult to shift.

As a result, I'm not convinced that ketosis (the state of primarily using fat as energy) is the natural state for human beings since that would imply that humans are essentially supposed to be suffering the stress of starvation the whole time. I'm, not convinced of this, although obviously the while thing a matter of massive scientific debate.

That doesn't mean ketosis is unhealthy though and like you said, it's very important to distinguish between ketosis and ketoacedosis.

[fgummett]

Fat is essentially a back-up energy sourceThat implies we are adapted to run primarily on Glucose... is that true?

I see it more like a hybrid car that has both electric and gasoline engines... in stop-start traffic around town the electric engine is more efficient -- as a gasoline engine is least efficient during acceleration BUT at constant highway speeds the gasoline engine comes into its own and is more efficient.

So we do describe one energy source as primary and the other as "back-up" in that case... or do we simply accept that they are used for different purposes?

[DeusXM]

That implies we are adapted to run primarily on Glucose... is that true?

As far as I'm aware, the body metabolises the food groups in the following order of preference: alcohol, glucose, other sugars, other carbs, protein, fat. So I would say that carbs are the body's preferred energy source, and indeed a body that cannot metabolise carbs (ie a T1) will be in trouble very very quickly.

Stating that carbs are the preferred energy source is not the same as saying carbs are the needed energy source or that people should eat lots of carbs, mind you.

So we do describe one energy source as primary and the other as "back-up" in that case... or do we simply accept that they are used for different purposes?

This depends on whether we are now talking about dietary fat or body fat. Body fat is the body's way of storing excess energy derived from any source (which of course blasts the erroneous idea that simply eating fat will make you fat). And of course this further complicates the nature of having ketones - the presence of ketones could indicate the metabolism of dietary fat (perfectly normal and health), the metabolism of body fat (possibly healthy in the case of excess body fat but perhaps not a healthy state to be in permenantly) or ketoacedosis (unhealthy).

I guess this is why whether ketosis is healthy or not is open to debate - ketosis doesn't provide any indication of the actual cause. Which is why I would say it is a natural state, rather than the natural state.

[fgummett]

the presence of ketones could indicate ... the metabolism of body fat (possibly healthy in the case of excess body fat but perhaps not a healthy state to be in permanently)I agree with what you say about ketosis vs ketoacidosis but my understanding is that is it normal and healthy to use our fat stores on a regular (daily) basis. We store Glucose as Glycogen in the Liver and muscles... would you suggest it is unhealthy when we dip into those stores? We are not adapted to be eating at a buffet all day... so we need an efficient way to provide energy between meals and overnight.

---

I also question the use of the word "order of preference"... I'll accept that the body may metabolize those nutrients in that order but using the word "preference" implies a conscious decision and that one nutrient has some advantage over the other based on that order. On the contrary, I'd say that fat has an advantage in being more calorie-dense and a more efficient way to store energy than Glucose.

[Injecto]

The Inuit (or another generic 'tribal' group) do very well on a low-carb/no-carb diet, ergo the low-carb diet is the right one because someone from outside that group also did well on it

For every group that does well on low-carb, there's another group that eats lots of carbs and does very well, such as pretty much the whole of Asia.

Uh, but all of asia is what is called "developing", so really a 3rd world growing up. As such, manual labour is VERY prevalent, and thus, this example of Healthy Carb Eating Asia is as good as your earlier example of North America in the 1950's with manual jobs.



Low carb is healthy. If it doesn't work for you as a diabetic, then you aren't low carbing, simple as that. Diabetes is a carb disease. Simple.

[plattb1]

While it is true that most Asian countries are categorized as "developing," Japan, South Korea, Singapore, & Hong Kong are definitely "developed" or industrialized. And, they comprise many millions of people - Japan & South Korea have combined populations of nearly 200 million. So, I'm not sure that your point is accurate. I have often wondered why rice at every meal can be healthy for them - and so unhealthy for others.

[foxl]

Barrie -- I am not sure it is. The figures for Diabetes developing in those developed Asian countries are high.

I do not have statistics handy to back me up, but they are out there.

[plattb1]

Thanks, Linda, interesting ....

[plattb1]

So, Linda, you are right ... check this article TIME Asia: Silent Killer (http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/1101021209/story.html)

[foxl]

Interesting they lump India and S Asia in with East Asia ... a genetically and dietarily VERY different people!

But ... both are developing ... DEVELOPING FAST FOOD MARKETS. :eek:

[fgummett]

TIME Asia: Silent Killer (http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/1101021209/story.html)Today, some 89 million Asians are thought to be diabetic, and four of the five largest diabetic populations are to be found in Asian countries. India has an estimated 32.7 million people with diabetes, according to the IDI. China has 22.6 million, Pakistan 8.8 and Japan 7.1.

The disease is also spreading more rapidly in Asia than anywhere else. Asia's count is expected to hit 170 million by 2025, with India and China together accounting for almost 100 million victims.Before we fall back into the trap/myth that "all carbs are equal" it is worth remembering that traditional Asian food would not have been chiefly the polished white rice seen so often these days... but more coarsely prepared whole rice with other grains -- together with fresh green vegetables, fish, pork etc...

I'm certainly not saying that all carbs are bad for everyone just that too much of what is eaten Worldwide these days is refined/concentrated carbohydrates that we as a species are not adapted to process effectively. For me personally, the damage is already done and I have a very low tolerance now for ANY carbs but I still manage to eat plenty of broccoli and Romaine -- for example.

--

Barrie -- Snap! :)

[sarahspins]

Low carb is healthy. If it doesn't work for you as a diabetic, then you aren't low carbing, simple as that. Diabetes is a carb disease. Simple.

Right, and running high constantly on a low-carb diet is healthy too? A fairly large portion of protein is converted INTO carbohydrate energy by the body. This has to be accounted for with extra insulin in a T1. For me, I find it quite frustrating and often unpredictable to try to cover that conversion with adequate insulin.

Just eating carbs is MUCH easier for *me*. It may not be for everyone, that's why it's great to have options. I really hate the condescending notion that low carb is the ONLY appropriate means of controlling D.

[foxl]

Right, and running high constantly on a low-carb diet is healthy too? A fairly large portion of protein is converted INTO carbohydrate energy by the body. This has to be accounted for with extra insulin in a T1. For me, I find it quite frustrating and often unpredictable to try to cover that conversion with adequate insulin.

Just eating carbs is MUCH easier for *me*. It may not be for everyone, that's why it's great to have options. I really hate the condescending notion that low carb is the ONLY appropriate means of controlling D.

Sarah, if you convert that much protein to carbs, have you ever tried metformin? It sounds like you have a high rate of gluconeogenesis, which metformin might address ... and permit you to lower your insulin TDD.

Just curious if your MD has suggested this?

[notme]

Right, and running high constantly on a low-carb diet is healthy too? A fairly large portion of protein is converted INTO carbohydrate energy by the body. This has to be accounted for with extra insulin in a T1. For me, I find it quite frustrating and often unpredictable to try to cover that conversion with adequate insulin.

Just eating carbs is MUCH easier for *me*. It may not be for everyone, that's why it's great to have options. I really hate the condescending notion that low carb is the ONLY appropriate means of controlling D.

Yes Sarah, I agree. There is more than one answer to this very complex question. I find that eating lower carb is working for me, but I still have to cover all foods with insulin. Eating fats, marbled meats, bacon and pork chops is not in my food plan. We all need to be cogniscent of the variety of people we have on this site and know that not everyone has access to certain foods or an ability to eat in that manner. I feel full on the foods that I am eating without adding the calories of fat. I don't believe that mainstream has it all wrong. I do think we have gotten in the habit of eating cheap processed foods. I have cut them out.

Thanks for your post.

[butterflykisses]

Developing Countries begin to process more food to feed more people cheaper...PROCESSED. Their diets are altered, going from very little processing to highly processed. People used to grow, dry and hand grind their own grains using energy so they can eat. Now machines do all the work, and are so "efficient" that much of the nutrients they contain have to put back in! The more developed a country is the more processed foods become and more is available to them. Development is a double edged sword, especially if people move forward blindly.

[Grunch]

Low carb is healthy. If it doesn't work for you as a diabetic, then you aren't low carbing, simple as that. Diabetes is a carb disease. Simple.

So you can control type 1 with low carbing and no insulin? It's an insulin deficiency disease, not a carb disease. I can control it just fine with insulin and high carb.

If you control it with insulin injections and playing cricket that doesn't make it a cricket playing disease. The common denominator is always insulin. If low carbing works for you that's great, but let's avoid perpetuating this myths.

[conguitos]

"Seems to work" is what I am referring to, conquitos. Since most of us on this site are not inuit, I would definitely try to stick to the facts we are sure of and not call any one dietary choice a myth.

I certainly like hearing what others are doing and trying and love to read any new studies. I just don't think any of us are 100% certain when it comes to diet and we are all searching for answers that are best for us. It concerns me when people are so certain about a radical diet choice or calling what others are doing a myth.

Like I said. I tend to follow a more raw type diet. I dont' eat red meat or chicken. I do eat certain types of fish. That is my choice and it is working for me. It may not work for others.

About diabetes or any other chronic disease, the facts we are sure are quite rare, that's why they're chronic. As of lately there's even some doubt if it's only an insulin problem, in the case of some diabetes cases, after some observations on mice and the injection of a lipid gen in them. They were diabetic when injected, after some weeks the had a perfectly normal glucose metabolism, while still having low insulin (diabetic) production levels. According to the chief scientist "we've been brainwashed for years into thinking that insulin is the only thing involved in glucose metabolism".

I'm always cautious about so called facts that come out of the medical intelligentsia, like the cholesterol craze, which was, still is?, a fact (for the media and the average doc).

I agree with you that, unless you can explain at a molecular level how somethings in our bodies work, we have to be careful about what we do in the quest to feel better and thrive.

But you, Notme, fell in the same category when you stated that a low carb diet is a "radical diet". Why? There you owe us an explanation. What do you think we're missing when low carbing?

I cannot see how I could get more than 50gr to 100gr carbs per day out in the european pampas. There's absolutely nothing that grows overhere that would give me that amount of sugars, not even combined. The only thing that I can imagine of is honey. And for 100000s of years my ancestors fed on what you call radical diet, just recently, around 6000 to 10000 years ago they began to feed on cereals and other carby stuff, according to todays archeological knowledge.

I didn't call anyones dietary choice a myth, I just stated some things that I believe are myths about the low carb diets.

[DeusXM]

We store Glucose as Glycogen in the Liver and muscles... would you suggest it is unhealthy when we dip into those stores?

No, but I would say it's unhealthy to be constantly living off them. You're trying to jump to extremes here. All I've said is perhaps it's not a good idea to be constantly ketotic and now you've decided to interpret that as 'you should never be ketotic'.

I do find this very frustrating because now we've come onto yet another myth promoted by low-carbers - namely If you do not subscribe to this particular belief, you must obviously support the complete polar opposite.

What did I say?

the metabolism of body fat (possibly healthy in the case of excess body fat but perhaps not a healthy state to be in permanently)

Please, in the nicest possible way, pay attention to what I've written and respond to THAT, rather than respond to what you'd assume I'd write.

Low carb is healthy. If it doesn't work for you as a diabetic, then you aren't low carbing, simple as that. Diabetes is a carb disease. Simple.

No it's not. Diabetes is an overarching metabolic disorder which in the case of T1s means it is impossible to fuel muscles by any means, carb-based or not.

Before we fall back into the trap/myth that "all carbs are equal" it is worth remembering that traditional Asian food would not have been chiefly the polished white rice seen so often these days... but more coarsely prepared whole rice with other grains -- together with fresh green vegetables, fish, pork etc...

Good call. Rates of obesity and diabetes traditionally (note: traditionally) are far lower in SE Asia than in the West, despite the diet being high in carbs. So as you say, there is evidently something more than just 'carbs' as a bulk group at play. Ergo, a low-carb diet is NOT necessarily the universal, necessary panacea it is made out to be. I would suggest that the problems we are seeing in the West are related to a high-carb diet + other factors - possibly rate of activity, type of carb, additives, overall calorie intake as suggestions.

And for 100000s of years my ancestors fed on what you call radical diet, just recently, around 6000 to 10000 years ago they began to feed on cereals and other carby stuff, according to todays archeological knowledge.

Modern Europeans have only existed for around 100,000 years, and it's also perfectly possible for populations to genetically adapt within 10,000 years. Almost all Europeans carry a gene sequence that allows them to metabolise alcohol effectively, whereas almost no Asians have that gene sequence. The divergence is assumed to have happened around the same time the Chinese began sterilising water through boiling while Europeans sterilised their beverages by brewing - a divergence that only happened around 4000 years ago.

Given that bread is documented part of diet since the earliest records of civilisation it seems highly likely that bread-eating populations such as Europeans would have genetically adapted to be able to take in this carb input - which would explain why Europeans were able to survive on diets with a lot of bread and potatoes (bread was a feature of every meal in the Middle Ages) without suffering obesity or diabetes until the last 50 years or so. Again - it simply cannot be 'carbs' as a whole that is responsible for the problems we see today because we would have seen these problems for far longer.

[notme]

Seems that picking apart one word used in a phrase is a common practice here, but it serves no purpose in the overall meaning of what we are discussing. I digress. You did not call anyone's dietary choices a myth. However, the idea of eating mostly proteins and fats is definitely a large change in what the general population is doing today. While you did not call anyone's dietary choices a myth, you did state that some of the concerns they have a myth.

My concern is the certainty in the statements that are being made by people who believe that fats and proteins should be our primary source of energy.

Our diet choice is very similar, conquitos. I choose to not eat meat. Thats it? So where's the beef?

[foxl]

Deus, interesting about the purification of drink ... that seems an awfully short time frame for the magnitude of genetic effect observed, but I would need to research it more. Which I may -- I have never read that before!

But ... I do think (most) everyone in the low carb contingent agrees, you have to have high carbs AND refined fats combined, to cause the horrendous metabolic distortions seen recently ... ? Though my assumption on that may be wrong, it is what I have read put forth by the theorists.

ETA: NB: East Asians typically do not eat their rice with a lot of fat or butter as westerners do ... (although South Asians picked up the habit from the Moghuls).

[fgummett]

Please, in the nicest possible way, pay attention to what I've written and respond to THAT, rather than respond to what you'd assume I'd write.
You are right, I was only responding to the first part of...the metabolism of body fat (possibly healthy in the case of excess body fat but perhaps not a healthy state to be in permanentlyI maintain that the use of Fat stores between meals is part of a normal healthy daily cycle just like dipping into the Glycogen stores... not just in the case of excess Fat.

We use up these stores... we get hungry... we eat and replenish these stores.

For myself I mostly find ketones in my urine only in the late afternoon and evenings -- when my insulin pump has been at its lowest rate for the longest time.

---

Just found this article... I'm still reading it, but others may be interested : A brief review of the archaeological evidence for Palaeolithic and Neolithic subsistence (http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n12/full/1601646a.html)

[foxl]

Thank you, Frank! Right up my alley, hobby-wise ...

[fgummett]

Thank you, Frank! Right up my alley, hobby-wise ...I'd take the use of the word "brief" in the title under advisement though :D

So far it seems thorough and well balanced.

[Rekarb]

Diabetes is a frustrating problem. The fact that we each have to figure out what works for us makes it even messier.

I've been low carbing since I was dx'd but I'm finding that I need to adjust it. I can't handle carbs in the morning but I need to take in more carbs later in the day. How much I still don't know but my bg's get lower throughout the day and I'm finding that this matches with more carbs not less. Maybe it's because I've been cycle commuting for 30 years and now have the metabolism of a rat on speed. Who knows why but I'll be testing to try to figure this out.

Mike

[fgummett]

Interesting read...
A brief review of the archaeological evidence for Palaeolithic and Neolithic subsistence (http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n12/full/1601646a.html)Conclusions

To conclude, it is difficult to accurately determine the nature of past hominid diets, or define the 'Palaeolithic' diet, due to the limitations of the archaeological record, a problem which is amplified in the Palaeolithic period [roughly 99% of human history or from 2.5 million to 10,000 years ago] where survival of organic materials is very rare.

We can infer, based on changes in cranial morphology, such as increased gracilisation of the mandible [smaller jaw] and increase in brain size through time, that there is evidence for an increase in meat consumption in the Homo line through time. However, as this conclusion is based on analogies with living primates it is ambiguous, and the same data has been interpreted as being evidence of increasing use of energy-rich plant foods through time. Other lines of evidence are needed to address this debate, but perhaps the best interpretation of the morphological data is that hominids, and especially modern humans, have been very successful as highly adaptable omnivores, that probably had a significant input of animal products into their diets.

The artefactual evidence for diet is poor, especially from earlier periods. In Palaeolithic Africa and Europe stone tools have been inferred to have been used for hunting and butchering animals. Almost no plant remains survive, and animal bones have marks on them to indicate that they were butchered and hunted. However, there is a danger of placing too much emphasis on this evidence, as Marion Nestle writes 'Since bones are better preserved than vegetable matter, they give the impression that hunted animals must have been primary food sources'.

As a contrast, bone chemistry, especially stable isotope evidence, provides direct evidence of diets, and indicates, for the few limited studies, that Neanderthals were top-level carnivores. Two studies of Upper Palaeolithic modern humans in Europe have also indicated the significant importance of animal products in the diets, and similar evidence of the consumption of animal meat is also found in the later Mesolithic periods in Europe.

There is a significant change in the archaeological record associated with the introduction of plant domestication (ie the Neolithic period in Europe and the Near East) [roughly 10,000 years ago], such as the appearance of pottery, stone tools for plant processing, and the remains of the domesticated plants themselves. There is, in many areas, an associated general decrease in body stature, dentition size, and an increase in caries [tooth decay] rates. The smaller dentition is not due to more meat, but instead to the consumption of easier to chew processed foods like bread and porridges, and the carbohydrate contents of those foods result in the increased caries rates. There is also a range of diseases associated with the consumption of these processed foods and related to the sedentism* and urbanization that often follow from the increased reliance on domesticated plants.

However, associated with the general decrease in health associated with the adoption of agriculture, as evidenced in skeletal remains, is a significant and dramatic population increase, which is the trade-off that our ancestors made. To increase population size food production must increase beyond the carrying capacity of the environment, and domestication and control of plants and animals allow this. However, associated with this is overcrowding and the observed general decline in individual health, and we are still living with the effects of this Neolithic revolution today

* Sedentism is the term archaeologists use to describe the process of settling down to live in groups for periods of time.

[conguitos]

Modern Europeans have only existed for around 100,000 years, and it's also perfectly possible for populations to genetically adapt within 10,000 years. Almost all Europeans carry a gene sequence that allows them to metabolise alcohol effectively, whereas almost no Asians have that gene sequence. The divergence is assumed to have happened around the same time the Chinese began sterilising water through boiling while Europeans sterilised their beverages by brewing - a divergence that only happened around 4000 years ago.

Given that bread is documented part of diet since the earliest records of civilisation it seems highly likely that bread-eating populations such as Europeans would have genetically adapted to be able to take in this carb input - which would explain why Europeans were able to survive on diets with a lot of bread and potatoes (bread was a feature of every meal in the Middle Ages) without suffering obesity or diabetes until the last 50 years or so. Again - it simply cannot be 'carbs' as a whole that is responsible for the problems we see today because we would have seen these problems for far longer.

I'm a proponent of a mixed lineage, despite the DNA tests done by Svante Päävo, I believe that neanderthal, cro-magnon and erectus remnants mated together, giving a distinct phenotype in Europe, the Middle East, Australia, America and Asia. Neanderthals and Sapiens coexisted for long periods of time in the middle east.

My idea is that my (european) ancestors were hunter gatherers that had probably the same rythm of live of a modern bushman, excepting in the winter, where long periods of starvation were probable.

We humans were, well, still are, the top of the predators, I'm really amazed on how such a primitive body design, of this size, could survive amongst highly specialized animals like the lions or sabre tooth tigers. They have extremely adapted and performant bodies. We have a body that is near to the design of the first anphibians, or a modern frog.

But then, we're one of the few mammals that can survive long periods of time without eating but still be functional, not in hybernation mode. So yes, I think that starvation mode is quite a normal modus operandi for a human organism. There are few animals that can run for hours like humans. On very long distances, I've read that a human is faster than a horse.

As by the article excerpted by Frank, archeological evidence suggests that when switching to a more herbivorous diet, carb loaded, humans got sicker, smaller and even some say dumber... For example, in Egypt, quite an amount of mummies show evidence of diabetic complications, tumors, cancers, (almost not found on remains of cro-magnons), due to their healthy diet? Consisting mostly of fruits, veggies, whole grains and almost no animal protein?

For the alcohol "problem" I've never heard of that alcohol gene. AFAIK, tibetans, nepalese, japanese and most chinese have a long tradition of alcoholic breverages, like sake or that "old" yak milk, yuk! I guess that by asians you mean the people with slanted eyes.

I believe that 10'000 years is too litlle to adapt an organism to a radically different diet, assuming I'm correct about the diet my "wild" ancestors had. In my case, in western Europe, according to archeology, agriculture only arrived around 5'000 years ago. Unless we talk about a Tschernobyl like mutation accelerator...

But we don't really know how DNA or genes really/exactly work, we're just at the beginnings, so it could be that evolution could speed up in a matter of few generations, who knows.

Going back to your metabolic preference chain, I read the article about fatty acid metabolism, and I would be surprised that the body would prefer something with less energy and that uses more resources as energy source.

Here the link:
Fatty acid metabolism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid_metabolism)

After reading the article, I would rather think that carbs/proteins are a lousy/wasteful energy source and probably a remnant of long gone times when our ancestors relied on fermentantion and only some very "primitive", but very important organs, or parts of them, really need glucose, but the necessary amount to keep them happy can be produced by the liver from proteins.

AFAIK fat slows down glucose/alcohol/carb absorption and what gets first in is fat, so I think that your metabolic chain is incorrect.

I think that Franks analogy with the Diesel/Gasoline motor is perfect, just that I think that the glucose modus is the exception and not the rule for a human body.

Sorry for the long post...

[fgummett]

Given that bread is documented part of diet since the earliest records of civilisation it seems highly likely that bread-eating populations such as Europeans would have genetically adapted to be able to take in this carb input - which would explain why Europeans were able to survive on diets with a lot of bread and potatoes (bread was a feature of every meal in the Middle Ages) without suffering obesity or diabetes until the last 50 years or so. Again - it simply cannot be 'carbs' as a whole that is responsible for the problems we see today because we would have seen these problems for far longer.How would you rate the bread available in the grocery stores over the last 50 years in comparison to the bread that was eaten for the previous 10,000 or so?

[fgummett]

I can also certainly accept genetic variation over 10,000 or even 5,000 years (you may have mentioned this one previously but lactose tolerance in adults in another example) -- IIRC Darwin talks about only 20 (or maybe 50?) generations as sufficient for an adaptation... but I think we are talking about relatively small changes... not a complete "redesign" of our digestive system -- for example. This is why I believe that at least in general terms, the Palaeolithic period of evolution still applies to my body today.

[conguitos]

Our diet choice is very similar, conquitos. I choose to not eat meat. Thats it? So where's the beef?

Hmmmm, beef, good ;)

It's just what I understand from what I read, from a systemic point of view.

My problem whith western medicine, is, that in my view, we complicate things. We tend to see these disorders as something misterious, unsolvable and very complicated. When everything boils down to the laws of nature, electromagnetism and physics.

My antibodies are nothing more than stinkin' molecules that attach themselves to a molecule made of glutamate and some other atoms. Then those pesky white blood cells will attack those molecules, well its not their fault, they're doing their job, and destabilize the membranes of the cells that have those GAD-65 molecules on them.

Why my body sometime "thought" that now it was time to eliminate those glutamate compounds? Well, I guess that it was too much, since glutamate is very important for nerve cell communications(the body usually produces enough of it), but too much will overdrive them, even kill them, at the end, did my body react correctly? I guess yes, it's just a shame that the pancreatic B-cells also have this glutamate molecule on their membranes, according to my endo.

And as a former processed food junkie (by processed I mean the stuff that you can buy at a grocery or eat in a restaurant), I probably ingested kgs per year of the mononatrium glutamate... No wonder my body rebelled, at least it is what I think.

Combine that with the loads of gluten I ate with breads and other products, another nerve killer, similar to heroine...

Like nicotine, they know why they put gluten and glutamate into almost everything...

My way of thinking may be naïve, but until now it has worked for me, peace

[DeusXM]

But ... I do think (most) everyone in the low carb contingent agrees, you have to have high carbs AND refined fats combined, to cause the horrendous metabolic distortions seen recently ... ? Though my assumption on that may be wrong, it is what I have read put forth by the theorists.

You're hearing no complaints here, and I'm not a low carber.

Oddly enough, I've even read some research that suggests the carb intake in Western populations is far lower than in other populations with a far greater focus on fat and protein.


But then, we're one of the few mammals that can survive long periods of time without eating but still be functional, not in hybernation mode. So yes, I think that starvation mode is quite a normal modus operandi for a human organism. There are few animals that can run for hours like humans. On very long distances, I've read that a human is faster than a horse.

These statements are completely unconnected. Humans are completely unremarkable when it comes to raw biological abilities and don't have any survival advantages over any other mammals - except for the ability to adapt our environment for our own benefit. But this doesn't affect our metabolic abilities.

For example, in Egypt, quite an amount of mummies show evidence of diabetic complications, tumors, cancers, (almost not found on remains of cro-magnons), due to their healthy diet?

I think if you combine the average estimated life-expectancy of a 'Cro-magnon' with an ancient Egyptian, you'd find the Egyptians on average lived longer, raising the issue of to what extent the aging process causes such problems.

For the alcohol "problem" I've never heard of that alcohol gene. AFAIK, tibetans, nepalese, japanese and most chinese have a long tradition of alcoholic breverages, like sake or that "old" yak milk, yuk! I guess that by asians you mean the people with slanted eyes.

Yes, I'm referrng to people with 'slanty eyes'. The same people who on average by 50% lack a specific gene to process alcohol, resulting in a syndrome known as Asian flush.

BBC News | HEALTH | Asians at risk from 'alcohol gene' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/801873.stm)
Alcohol flush reaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction)
Alcohol dehydrogenase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_dehydrogenase)

Alcohol dehydrogenase activity varies between men and women, between young and old, and among populations from different areas of the world. For example, young women are unable to process alcohol at the same rate as young men because they do not express the alcohol dehydrogenase as highly. Though, the inverse is true amongst the middle-aged.[5] The level of activity may not only be dependent on level of expression but due to allelic diversity among the population. These allelic differences have been linked to region of origin. For example, populations from Europe have been found to express an allele for the alcohol dehydrogenase gene that makes it much more active than those found in populations from Asia or the Americas.

This may be a correlating evolution with the rise of aldehyde dehydrogenase, which has been suggested as one of the more recognizable recent evolutionary changes in humans (along with lactose tolerance) - in order to make water safe in cities too dense to use springs, Europeans fermented alcoholic (and hence antiseptic) beverages, while Asians typically boiled their water (creating, among other things, tea). The Europeans' relatively greater alcohol consumption increased selection for those who didn't suffer from violent alcohol flush response in European populations.[citation needed]

Sorry buddy, but just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean this phenomena isn't extensively documented.#

AFAIK fat slows down glucose/alcohol/carb absorption and what gets first in is fat, so I think that your metabolic chain is incorrect.

Mate, seriously, no-one's going to buy this. Eat a pizza and see what happens to your BG after 2 hours. Then tell me that fat gets into your blood more quickly than protein.

It's true that the heart MAY prefer fatty acids but the simple fact is that muscles use glucose as fuel. Carbs and sugars break down to glucose far quicker than fat or protein, which means that these MUST be the body's preferred energy source - else the body would not have evolved in such as way to allow the digestive system to put these nutrients into the blood first. Carbs directly fuel your metabolism; fat doesn't. Incidentally, I was wrong, fat is priotised before protein, because protein can also be used to create new amino acid chains to repair the body and so the body prefers to use other sources first in order to preserve its supply of amino acids.

I would rather think that carbs/proteins are a lousy/wasteful energy source and probably a remnant of long gone times when our ancestors relied on fermentantion and only some very "primitive", but very important organs, or parts of them, really need glucose, but the necessary amount to keep them happy can be produced by the liver from proteins.


HOLD UP.

Read what you've written.

You've been telling me that carbs could not have played a significant role in your ancestors' diet. Now you're telling me that your ancestors were reliant on carbs.

You've contradicted yourself.

How would you rate the bread available in the grocery stores over the last 50 years in comparison to the bread that was eaten for the previous 10,000 or so?

Very different. You're not hearing any argument from me whatsoever that our food has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. I'm just not inclined to write it off as 'carbs'. I'd imagine that medieval horsebread doesn't differ to greatly in the net carbs than your average sliced white loaf. But I'd say one has a very different effect to the other on you.

[Chef Barrae]

How would you rate the bread available in the grocery stores over the last 50 years in comparison to the bread that was eaten for the previous 10,000 or so?

7,500 years ago stone-aged man was grinding barley and grasses with stones to make hard "cakes." You tell me the difference in the evolution of bread. Obviously, you cannot really compare bread from stone-age times and modern times and rate them, in my opinion. My grandfather owned a bakery over 75 years ago and made all the goods he sold. Based on stories passed down, he made breads like rye, whole wheat, challah, pumpernickle and pullman bread, the predecessor to sliced white bread. So, I imagine they were mostly whole-grain, unprocessed products.

[conguitos]

These statements are completely unconnected. Humans are completely unremarkable when it comes to raw biological abilities and don't have any survival advantages over any other mammals - except for the ability to adapt our environment for our own benefit. But this doesn't affect our metabolic abilities.

That's not my view, 20'000 years ago we were probably barey able to build some huts and spears. That's hardly adapting the environment more than lets say termites.



I think if you combine the average estimated life-expectancy of a 'Cro-magnon' with an ancient Egyptian, you'd find the Egyptians on average lived longer, raising the issue of to what extent the aging process causes such problems.

We cannot say for certain for how long a cro-magnon lived as an average, but comparing it to modern hunter gatherer societies, egyptians didn't seem to live longer than them. And most deaths in "wild" human populations seem to come from traumata and acute illnesses.

Yes, I'm referrng to people with 'slanty eyes'. The same people who on average by 50% lack a specific gene to process alcohol, resulting in a syndrome known as Asian flush.

BBC News | HEALTH | Asians at risk from 'alcohol gene' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/801873.stm)
Alcohol flush reaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction)
Alcohol dehydrogenase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_dehydrogenase)

Sorry buddy, but just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean this phenomena isn't extensively documented.#

Ok, I misunderstood you, I thought that you were claiming that most asians had a problem with alcohol.


Mate, seriously, no-one's going to buy this. Eat a pizza and see what happens to your BG after 2 hours. Then tell me that fat gets into your blood more quickly than protein.

It's true that the heart MAY prefer fatty acids but the simple fact is that muscles use glucose as fuel. Carbs and sugars break down to glucose far quicker than fat or protein, which means that these MUST be the body's preferred energy source - else the body would not have evolved in such as way to allow the digestive system to put these nutrients into the blood first. Carbs directly fuel your metabolism; fat doesn't. Incidentally, I was wrong, fat is priotised before protein, because protein can also be used to create new amino acid chains to repair the body and so the body prefers to use other sources first in order to preserve its supply of amino acids.

Well, then it's only me, when I eat 50gr of glucose alone, my BG will skyrocket in no time, when I eat the same amount in chocolate, it doesn't skyrocket that fast and the curve is less pronounced. According to my doc (and not only him) that's due of the preference of my body for fat, but then, I'm avid to learn more...

Muscle Physiology - Metabolism of Fatty Acids (http://muscle.ucsd.edu/musintro/fattyacid.shtml)

Fat doesn't break down into glucose and muscles don't necessarly need glucose, the only organs that really need glucose are some parts of the brain, red blood cells, white blood cells, the renal medulla and cancer cells.

Oxydation is considered "modern", fermentation is "old school".

HOLD UP.

Read what you've written.

You've been telling me that carbs could not have played a significant role in your ancestors' diet. Now you're telling me that your ancestors were reliant on carbs.

You've contradicted yourself.

Sorry, I should express myself more concisely, I referred there to our unicellular ancestors, the ones, that like cancer cells, relied on fermentation for their energy needs.

[fgummett]

Thanks both -- I think it is important that when we use words like "bread" we are actually comparing "apples" to "apples" :)

---

Here's an interesting quote from Michael Pollan, In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto (pgs. 34-35, 2008)The 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act imposed strict rules requiring that the word “imitation” appear on any food product that was, well, an imitation ... [And] the food industry [argued over the word], strenuously for decades, and in 1973 it finally succeeded in getting the imitation rule tossed out, a little-noticed but momentous step that helped speed America down the path of nutritionism.

… The American Heart Association, eager to get Americans off saturated fats and onto vegetable oils (including hydrogenated vegetable oils), was actively encouraging the food industry to “modify” various foods to get the saturated fats and cholesterol out of them, and in the early seventies the association urged that “any existing and regulatory barriers to the marketing of such foods be removed.”

And so they were when, in 1973, the FDA (not, note, the Congress that wrote the law) simply repealed the 1938 rule concerning imitation foods. It buried the change in a set of new, seemingly consumer-friendly rules about nutrient labeling so that news of the imitation rule’s appeal did not appear until the twenty-seventh paragraph of The New York Times’ account, published under the headline F.D.A. PROPOSES SWEEPING CHANGE IN FOOD LABELING: NEW RULES DESIGNED TO GIVE CONSUMERS A BETTER IDEA OF NUTRITIONAL VALUE. ... The revised imitation rule held that as long as an imitation product was not “nutritionally inferior” to the natural food it sought to impersonate—as long as it had the same quantities of recongized nutrients—the imitation could be marketed without using the dreaded “i” word.

[fgummett]

I often hear the assumption that our Palaeolithic ancestors did not live very long... I found this quote in Palaeolithic diet - Staffan Lindeberg - Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden (http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/viewFile/1526/1394):Palaeolithic populations do not lack elderly individuals, although the high mortality in infancy and childhood dramatically lowers average life expectancy. Among hunter/gatherers, estimated life expectancy at birth may be below 40 years, while life expectancy at age 50 years may be close to European levels of today*. Accordingly, there is no obvious reason to suspect that a different age structure is the main explanation for the apparent absence of cardiovascular disease in non-Western populations.

* Pennington R. Hunter/gatherer demography. In: Panter-Brick C, Layton RH, Rowley-Conwy P, eds. Hunter/gatherers. An interdisciplinary perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. p. 170/204.

---

As already quoted above (http://www.diabetesforums.com/forum/carbohydrate-and-calories/42597-myths-assumptions-promoted-supported-6.html#post489860) : ...associated with the general decrease in health associated with the adoption of agriculture, as evidenced in skeletal remains, is a significant and dramatic population increase, which is the trade-off that our ancestors made.

[Granny Shanny]

Thanks both -- I think it is important that when we use words like "bread" we are actually comparing "apples" to "apples" :)

(and anyone who thinks Wonder bread is real bread has another think comin', right?! :D :D :D)

[Chef Barrae]

I hope this doesn't sound facetious or insulting because it is not meant that way at all but are any of you familiar with the glycemic index? I was just curious if many of you are familiar with how it works. Low glycemic goods are the so-called "good carbs" because they metabolise slowly in the body and do not cause, or supposedly do not cause, spikes in blood glucose. I find checking the GI helpful when choosing which carbs to eat.

[fgummett]

I hope this doesn't sound facetious or insulting because it is not meant that way at all but are any of you familiar with the glycemic index? I was just curious if many of you are familiar with how it works. Low glycemic goods are the so-called "good carbs" because they metabolise slowly in the body and do not cause, or supposedly do not cause, spikes in blood glucose. I find checking the GI helpful when choosing which carbs to eat.A good point and not at all facetious or insulting CB :) GI has been discussed on DF before but is indeed a good starting point for any choice about how fast a food will raise your BG and to the same extent a measure of how refined or processed the carbs in that food may be. As ever you still need to test as we each seem to have our own tolerances to different foods.

[foxl]

Familiar enough with it to say, hey, Chef, YMMV, baby!

It does not work the way it ought, for me, and I wasted a lot of strips testing my faves.

[Granny Shanny]

Low glycemic goods are the so-called "good carbs" because they metabolise slowly in the body and do not cause, or supposedly do not cause, spikes in blood glucose. I find checking the GI helpful when choosing which carbs to eat.

"Supposedly" being the pivotal term here. The glycemic index has done me no favors - I best be just counting carbs the old-fashioned way.

[ShottleBop]

Given our differing numbers/capacities of functioning beta cells, it is virtually impossible to generalize for the benefit of folks who vary widely in the capacities of their remaining beta cells to deal with foods that affect their blood sugars.

[Chef Barrae]

Familiar enough with it to say, hey, Chef, YMMV, baby!

It does not work the way it ought, for me, and I wasted a lot of strips testing my faves.

I'm not real clued in to abbreviations on the computer. Sorry, but can you tell me what YMMV stands for? :o Maybe you already told me but I forgot. Thanks.

[Granny Shanny]

I'm not real clued in to abbreviations on the computer. Sorry, but can you tell me what YMMV stands for? :o Maybe you already told me but I forgot. Thanks.

Your Mileage May Vary (http://www.diabetesforums.com/forum/diabetes/42720-whatever-happened-to-ymmv.html)

meaning each of us uses different methods and gets differing results the better to manage our own individual disorder. One size does absolutely NOT fit all over here, and any particular method is not better or worse than another.

The link provided up here goes into more detail about why we shouldn't be critiquing and/or criticizing one another's diet regimens and/or recipes.

[foxl]

Thanks, Granny ... I was trying to reply, myself, but my 5 y/o w/ ADHD just messed up my 'puter in ways I could not even DETERMINE!

Random keyboarding ... gotta love it!

[Granny Shanny]

Kinda like when my big cat decides the shortest route to wherever he's going is straight across my keyboard? Yep! :D :D :D

[foxl]

Well I think Sam was a little more methodical, but ... YEAH!

[matingara]

I hope this doesn't sound facetious or insulting because it is not meant that way at all but are any of you familiar with the glycemic index? I was just curious if many of you are familiar with how it works. Low glycemic goods are the so-called "good carbs" because they metabolise slowly in the body and do not cause, or supposedly do not cause, spikes in blood glucose. I find checking the GI helpful when choosing which carbs to eat.

not in the slightest are you being facetious or insulting!

however, some of us are so efficient at turning carbs into sugar that the GI is totally meaningless.

as i have said before my body could probably turn steel shavings into sugar if i ate them!

:)

-- Joel.

[Chef Barrae]

not in the slightest are you being facetious or insulting!

however, some of us are so efficient at turning carbs into sugar that the GI is totally meaningless.

as i have said before my body could probably turn steel shavings into sugar if i ate them!

:)

-- Joel.

LOL!!! Oh my! I certainly hope not! Well, for once then I am happy to say that I am not that efficient! Stay away from the steel shavings. They get caught between you teeth anyway! I was just curious how effective other people find the GI. Thanks.

[genie86333]

As far as I'm aware, the body metabolises the food groups in the following order of preference: alcohol, glucose, other sugars, other carbs, protein, fat. So I would say that carbs are the body's preferred energy source, and indeed a body that cannot metabolise carbs (ie a T1) will be in trouble very very quickly.

Actually, wouldn't that mean that alcohol would be the body's preference? You can't agree that means we should consider it as essential, would you? So...just because the body metabolies something sooner than something else doesn't mean that it's *best* for it.

[DeusXM]

That's not my view, 20'000 years ago we were probably barey able to build some huts and spears. That's hardly adapting the environment more than lets say termites.

I'm afraid this demonstrates your lack of knowledge when it comes to human history. Humans have been able to make fire to keep warm, use tools to kill animals, harvest food and make artwork, and make clothes to keep warm for 500,000 years - which displays considerable ability to adapt the environment to the benefit of themselves. You're also presumably not aware of the archaeological evidence that suggests something similar to a village market was a regular occurrence in central France by around 30,000 years ago.

Human beings were a lot more advanced than most people think as far back as 50,000 years ago. If you took a human baby from that time and put it in your own home today, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and anyone else.

And most deaths in "wild" human populations seem to come from traumata and acute illnesses.

So if the mortality rate of acute illness in agricultural populations is lower than in wild populations, that would suggest perhaps that the diet of an agricultural society provides some kind of health benefit.

Well, then it's only me, when I eat 50gr of glucose alone, my BG will skyrocket in no time, when I eat the same amount in chocolate, it doesn't skyrocket that fast and the curve is less pronounced. According to my doc (and not only him) that's due of the preference of my body for fat, but then, I'm avid to learn more...

If this were the case, wouldn't everyone be really thin because their bodies would be burning body fat in preference to whatever else they were eating?

Just because the fat slows down the rate of glucose metabolism does not mean it is being metabolised before the glucose, it simply means that the presence of fat makes the glucose less accessible.

By the way, the link you posted suggests that glucose is more easily metabolised than fat. Yes, carbs are less energy-dense than fat, we know this. But just because fat is a more efficient energy source does not make it easier to metabolise.

Actually, wouldn't that mean that alcohol would be the body's preference? You can't agree that means we should consider it as essential, would you? So...just because the body metabolies something sooner than something else doesn't mean that it's *best* for it.

And once again we've falled into the trap of "if you don't support group A, this must mean you support the complete polar opposite of group A. And that's bad! Gotcha! You're wrong!"

Feel free to demonstrate where at any point in this thread I've said anything that comes higher than fat in the order of preference is 'better'. In fact if you look right underneath what I wrote:

"Stating that carbs are the preferred energy source is not the same as saying carbs are the needed energy source or that people should eat lots of carbs, mind you."

You're confusing a physiological preference (ie. ease of metabolism) with actual mental choice. The fact remains that alcohol is metabolised into energy quicker than fat. This is not the same as saying alcohol is what we should all be fuelling ourselves with, is it? I've been very careful throughout this thread to refuse to pin myself to a 'side', acknowledging that high-fat/low-carb diets work well for some people - and that low-fat/high-carb diets seem to work well for some people.

Essentially all I'm doing is pointing out that the 'debate' over dietary choices is a lot more complex than a simple case of carbs=bad and I really don't understand why some low-carbers seems so entrenched that they're not prepared to entertain this possibility. I also think it's very dangerous to say one diet is 'better' than another without knowing the individual's personal status.

[AngelKitty]

Hey Deus, does this seem familiar? :banghead:
But I have to say, I really admire your tenacity ;)

[fgummett]

You're confusing a physiological preference (ie. ease of metabolism) with actual mental choice.As I pointed out above, I think there is confusion here over your choice of the word...Preference (also called "taste" or "penchant") is a concept, used in the social sciences, particularly economics. It assumes a real or imagined "choice" between alternatives and the possibility of rank ordering of these alternatives, based on happiness, satisfaction, gratification, enjoyment, utility they provide.

"Ease of metabolism" is not the same as "Preference"

[DeusXM]

Fair enough, ok then, the way the body's metabolism operates works in favour of alcohol and carbs before fats and proteins.

Are we done diverting the debate over semantics now?

[fgummett]

Are we done diverting the debate over semantics now?Semantics perhaps but do you not see how it lead to continued confusion over what you meant..? As evidenced by "So...just because the body metabolizes something sooner than something else doesn't mean that it's *best* for it."

[DeusXM]

Not unless 'preferred' means the same thing as 'best', no.

[foxl]

not in the slightest are you being facetious or insulting!

however, some of us are so efficient at turning carbs into sugar that the GI is totally meaningless.

as i have said before my body could probably turn steel shavings into sugar if i ate them!

:)

-- Joel.


Can I steal that line, Joel??? I think you just described me in there, as well!

[reefedjib]

"Ease of metabolism" is not the same as "Preference"

Some yogi masters can consciously control their metabolisms, in a way similar to our ability to either allow breathing to be autonomic or conscious. In these individuals, they can enact a "preference" for which foods they digest. Of course, these individuals are already on a restricted diet to allow them the concentration they need to perform such a feat. I imagine this is a low-carb diet, but also without meat. Categorize this in the "thought you might like to know" file. :)

[Caravaggio]

...

Low carb is healthy. If it doesn't work for you as a diabetic, then you aren't low carbing, simple as that. Diabetes is a carb disease. Simple.

People who lived in Abkhasia (southern Russia), Vilcabamba (Ecuador), Hunza (northern Pakistan) were known for living long healthy lives, hardly suffering from diseases ailing modern society (cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, osteoporosis, dementia, etc.). Although the specifics vary, they basically ate mostly vegetarian diets, with rare serving of meat. When they did eat meat, they cut out the fatty bits. Physical exertion was part of their traditional way of life. They also relatively low calories - aound 1,900 calories for adult males. Carbohydrates comprised between 65-74% of these people's diets. They consumed no sugar or processed food. I have no information on their consumption of grain.

These people's diets, however, are changing as they are exposed to and adopting Western diet (including sugar and processed food) and Western diseases are appearing in these societies. I picked up the foregoing info from a book called Healthy at 100. The author of the book is vegetarian, but I am not.

The only reason I raise the foregoing is to show that there were also societies who did not live mostly on fat or protein, but mostly on carbohydrates but who did have the "carb disease" called diabetes. In fact, you can classify their diets as "high-carb" in comparison to their protein and fat intake, although they are certainly not "high-carb" in comparison to modern day diet (ie, high-sugar/flour/refined carbs, high-processed food, fast-food diet).

There also exist the observations of African and Asian societies by missionaries, doctors and others who worked in these societies before they were modernized. These observations noted that modern-day diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer and obesity, were rare among the locals who ate their traditional diets but when these locals adopted Western diets (whether in their own towns or after moving to cities) of high-sugar/flour/refined carbs, high-processed food, fast-food diet, cases of modern-day diseases increased.

[foxl]

Thanks for the example. I can see it coming -- low calories, and highly active. And ... I agree. That IS why it worked for them.

Highly active can be a viable alternative if you do not have a commitment to > or = 8 hr at a desk, 5 times or more per week.

[Caravaggio]

The low calories and some level of activity (I wouldn't know if they were highly active, as opposed to just active) may apply to the 3 specifically identified groups. However, the assumption may not apply for some groups in Asia and Africa, as the articles I read did not have info on these groups other than that sugar and refined carbs, specifically flour, were not part of their diet. Did they thrive on low calorie? Were they highly active? Without supporting data, what I can say is that there may be no single answer to these questions.

The commonality in these societies which I highlighted was not the low calorie or high level of activity which you focused on, but the lack of sugar and refined carbs which could explain the possibility of having a diet of mostly carbs but not get diabetes. That is why to me, the claim that "Diabetes is a carb disease. Simple." is not simple at all, as it implicates all carbs regardless of the kind of carb we are talking about.

Did these groups not have diabetes because they ate low calories? Because they were physically active? Or because of the absence of refined carbs and sugar (regardless of level of physical activity or total carb intake v. protein/fat intake)? Perhaps it is the kind of carbs, and not the amount of carbs or percentage of carbs in total calorie consumption, that is key.

On this note, I'd edit my post as the word "not" was missing in the first sentence of the third paragraph, which should have read :

"The only reason I raise the foregoing is to show that there were also societies who did not live mostly on fat or protein, but mostly on carbohydrates but who did not have the "carb disease" called diabetes."

[butterflykisses]

The common denominator in the examples of different societies and the diets they lived on is the absence of our highly refined, chemical laden, empty calorie junk food. And they move. There's no need to exercise if just the daily chores of living keep you moving throughout the day. Even living without the comforts of controlled temperatures exerts energy...cold and heat are big fuel users as our bodies work to keep us warm or cool. Ever watch Survivorman? I remember one episode when he was some place very cold. He was saying that in order just to survive a person needs like 6000 calories a day and half the calories consumed went to keep the body warm.

It seems obvious to me what the problems are. Maybe I'm just too simplistic in my thinking. Caravaggio's example echos what I have read about societies with diets of mostly fat and protein, like the Inuits, that only began to have problems like diabetes and heart disease when refined foods were introduced to their diets.

The great thing about low carb is that you can't include those refined foods...well, not easily. For myself, I'm concerned about the long term effects of eliminating a lot of fresh fruit and vegetables that carry a lot of nutrition, and variety. It seems that there is a new study every day that contradicts the one before. Too much or too little of this or that. Just recently for example...after being told the sun was bad and to slather on sunscreen when exposed, now people are Vitamin D deficient from the lack of sunlight. I guess that's why I think moderation and some common sense will go a long way. YMMV of course. :D

[Chef Barrae]

The common denominator in the examples of different societies and the diets they lived on is the absence of our highly refined, chemical laden, empty calorie junk food. And they move. There's no need to exercise if just the daily chores of living keep you moving throughout the day. Even living without the comforts of controlled temperatures exerts energy...cold and heat are big fuel users as our bodies work to keep us warm or cool. Ever watch Survivorman? I remember one episode when he was some place very cold. He was saying that in order just to survive a person needs like 6000 calories a day and half the calories consumed went to keep the body warm.

It seems obvious to me what the problems are. Maybe I'm just too simplistic in my thinking. Caravaggio's example echos what I have read about societies with diets of mostly fat and protein, like the Inuits, that only began to have problems like diabetes and heart disease when refined foods were introduced to their diets.

The great thing about low carb is that you can't include those refined foods...well, not easily. For myself, I'm concerned about the long term effects of eliminating a lot of fresh fruit and vegetables that carry a lot of nutrition, and variety. It seems that there is a new study every day that contradicts the one before. Too much or too little of this or that. Just recently for example...after being told the sun was bad and to slather on sunscreen when exposed, now people are Vitamin D deficient from the lack of sunlight. I guess that's why I think moderation and some common sense will go a long way. YMMV of course. :D

Here, here! Yes! Let common sense prevail! I don't low carb and that is what works for me. I eat a well balanced diet that was designed for me by a nutritionist and it works great for me. But the point is, common sense and balance. I think I am now supposed to say YMMV also.