[Subby]

Originally Posted by fgummett

I really do get the point about how off-putting some of us over-zealous low-carbers can be... what I can offer in my defense is that I feel attacked pretty much every time I bring it up... even the weight of the media seems to be against the idea.. every other story is based on how eating fat makes you fat, so maybe it is natural for me to come out swinging... I sincerely mean no offense to anyone here

As you are aware of the problem, why not make a start at not letting your emotional state play such a role in the way you communicate with people about low carb? You make the statement above as if it really is a valid excuse to be an active part of turning people from a course you see as possibly vitally important to their health. Seeing that you are a smart guy and seeing the level of awareness you have about both your emotions and the dynamics at play within the debates, I just don't think it's a good enough excuse to just trundle along the same way. Not good enough, for someone of your calibre. And despite the fact it could possibly sound like I was just having a sly dig or point scoring, I actually mean it sincerely and it is primarily and importantly a compliment, Frank.

[xMenace]

Originally Posted by fgummett

Low-carb came as quite a revelation to me after posts by John (thanks) lead me to Gary Taubes first and then Dr Bernstein --

BTW I'm not yet a total believer. I've read about low-carbing since I've been here, and I want(ed) to know more. It seemed to work for people, but the [probable] negative effects bother(ed) me.

As Frank says, I too am a walking heart attack. My cholesterol numbers are fine, but my weight isn't. Low fat diets never worked for me. Exercise didn't. I spent one whole summer unemployed playing golf every day and gained 20 ****ing pounds! I've nver been able to lose weight, only gain, gain, gain.

I find the concept of eating lots of meat and fat very difficult to overcome. I've read Pollan. I'm reading Taubes. I read lots of internet articles and watch lots of videos. All the low-carb arguments make sense. But I still need proof!

Last July I decided to try and prove it works. I dropped my TDD by 25%, gave up most grains, ate more fat and protein, and lost 10lbs in about 6 weeks! I also got out walking every day. My lipids stayed good.

But then I got shipped back to my home office and I started relaxing. I gained 5lbs back from Aug till Dec.

After much more reading, understanding, and conviction, I decided to try again but more intensely. Since Jan 1 my TDD is about 60% of my Jul 08 levels, I feel full most of the time, and I've lost 3.5lbs in 15 days! I also stopped my statin. I don't want medical interference. I want to know how my lipids will respond naturally. And best of all my BGs have improved greatly.

With help, encouragement, support, and prodding (I need to be prodded!) I plan to keep at this until at least my next bloodwork is done in early April.

[EdnBama]

Originally Posted by xMenace

I dropped my TDD by 25%, gave up most grains, ate more fat and protein, and lost 10lbs in about 6 weeks! I also got out walking every day. My lipids stayed good.

Okay. I'm drawing a blank. What is "TDD"?

[Evermont]

TDD = Total Daily Dose (insulin) ? Hah, you're such a T2 Ed.

Originally Posted by fgummett

... and it is a fact that "eating fat makes you fat and leads to heart disease" is no more proven than the idea that "eating carbs makes you fat"...

Not picking on you in particular Frank, I throwing this question or two out for anyone who's game.

Is it relevant that carbs are half as calorie dense as fat? When we choose to compare carbs and fats in these ways, are we talking about eating the same amounts (by weight) of food in both cases, or is a low-carb, higher fat diet the same number of calories, so smaller quantities of denser foods?

I'm still left wanting in all this discussion, as good as it is. I suspect that "good carbs" versus "bad carbs" is a more important distinction than fats versus carbs. When I hear a lot of generalizing about carbs are better or worse than fats it keeps coming back to me that not all carbs are equal. Leaving aside the question of whether all fats are eqaul - for the moment.

Is it possible that "bad carbs" are more likely to cause obesity than equal caloric quantities "good carbs"?

[EdnBama]

TDD = Total Daily Dose (insulin) ? Hah, you're such a T2 Ed.

Yes, Evermont, I'm such a T2!

I'm still thinking that for weight loss, a low-carb (not necessarily zero-carb), low-fat diet is the way to go. This based on my own experience so YMMV.

[fgummett]

All good points Keith and something that I think about often: my son Joshua turns 18 on the 23rd of this month His Mom and I have been apart for the last 16 years and during all that time he has spent alternate weeks between his two homes... I am not restricting him to eating the same way as I do, so what do I feed him..?

In my humble opinion the discussion here too quickly becomes polarised to extremes of low "this" or high "that" when -- as been wisely pointed out before -- the same amount that one person counts as "low" another may count as "high".

From my personal viewpoint I am an obese middle-aged man with Type 2 who has found out through experiment that I currently have a very low-tolerance for most, if not all carbs. I believe that my body's ability to manage sugar has been overwhelmed by too many years of too much fast-acting sugar. It is possible that as my weight and insulin sensitivity improve I may be able to allow myself more flexibility in my diet.

I don't want Josh to end up the same way, and I am hopeful that there is still time to set him on a healthier path. It may well be -- and I am leaning this way -- that all he needs to do is watch the "bad carbs" such as High Fructose Corn Syrup; by eating predominantly "real", whole, unprocessed foods.

[xMenace]

Originally Posted by Evermont

Is it relevant that carbs are half as calorie dense as fat?

Apparently not. It's that fat-storage-hormone that seems to be at fault. Whether fat itself gets stored as fat is unclear, but I think it's safe to say it at least doesn't get stored as efficiently as carbs.

Carbs trigger insulin, and insulin CAUSES fat storage. That's the simple and relevant message. Even low carb neigh-sayers have to acknowledge this. The Mayo clinic does: Insulin and weight gain: Keep the pounds off - MayoClinic.com , but they are so caught up in fat-is-bad that they won't say low-carb is good.

[EdnBama]

Originally Posted by fgummett

It may well be -- and I am leaning this way -- that all he needs to do is watch the "bad carbs" such as High Fructose Corn Syrup; by eating predominantly "real", whole, unprocessed foods.

Pizza Hut's "The Natural" is a pretty good pie with no HFCS!

[Evermont]

Originally Posted by EdnBama

...I'm still thinking that for weight loss, a low-carb (not necessarily zero-carb), low-fat diet is the way to go. This based on my own experience so YMMV.

There are but three macro-nutrients. Carbs, Fats, and Proteins. Low carb, and low fat implies either high protein or calorie restriction (simply less food with a 'normal' or higher amount of protein). Is that right? "Eat less" is probably a good mantra for a lot of folks.

Originally Posted by fgummett

... I currently have a very low-tolerance for most, if not all carbs. I believe that my body's ability to manage sugar has been overwhelmed by too many years of too much fast-acting sugar. It is possible that as my weight and insulin sensitivity improve I may be able to allow myself more flexibility in my diet...

I light just went on. The concept of dynamic temporal shifts in macro-nutrient needs based on stasis is a nice compliment to my favorite newborn science of nutrigenomics. Nutrigenomics tells you what you're programmed for whereas homeostatic (im)balance describes current state. Both are critical bits of info in slaying the dragon of generalization.

If we had a good individual profiles of both of these for a given individual we could Rx food.

Originally Posted by xMenace

Apparently not. It's that fat-storage-hormone that seems to be at fault. Whether fat itself gets stored as fat is unclear, but I think it's safe to say it at least doesn't get stored as efficiently as carbs.

Carbs trigger insulin, and insulin CAUSES fat storage. That's the simple and relevant message. Even low carb neigh-sayers have to acknowledge this. The Mayo clinic does: Insulin and weight gain: Keep the pounds off - MayoClinic.com , but they are so caught up in fat-is-bad that they won't say low-carb is good.

Helpful as always, thanks John.

[EdnBama]

Originally Posted by xMenace

Carbs trigger insulin, and insulin CAUSES fat storage. That's the simple and relevant message. Even low carb neigh-sayers have to acknowledge this.

Horses debate carbohydrates?

[EdnBama]

Originally Posted by Evermont

There are but three macro-nutrients. Carbs, Fats, and Proteins. Low carb, and low fat implies either high protein or calorie restriction (simply less food with a 'normal' or higher amount of protein). Is that right? "Eat less" is probably a good mantra for a lot of folks.

Yes'm, that is right.

[fgummett]

Originally Posted by EdnBama

Horses debate carbohydrates?

I noticed that too but it does make sense.. horses eat hay and oats... both high in carbohydrates j/k!

[Rad Warrier]

One thing that has not received due attention in this interesting and informative thread, in my humble opinion, is the digestive load of food. Before food becomes fuel (i.e., for it to be metabolised) it has to be digested first. Just as pancreas becomes exhausted if one overloads it with one's excessive insulin requirements, won't the digestive system also get exhausted if you overload it? Unlike carbohydrates, fat, or protein for that matter, is not something that is very easily digested. To get ultimately the same number of calories from food, the digestive system has to work more if the input is fat or protein than if it were carbs. Isn't that true?

My personal experience is that I will have stomach upsets if I take high amounts of fat or protein, even if they are of vegetable origin. Carbohydrates gives the least amount of stomach distress for me. I have found that a predominantly carbohydrate concoction - rice mixed with yogurt and salt to taste - gave me quick relief during several bouts of stomach upsets.

Regards,
Rad

[CaptainMike]

Originally Posted by Rad Warrier

One thing that has not received due attention in this interesting and informative thread, in my humble opinion, is the digestive load of food. Before food becomes fuel (i.e., for it to be metabolised) it has to be digested first. Just as pancreas becomes exhausted if one overloads it with one's excessive insulin requirements, won't the digestive system also get exhausted if you overload it? Unlike carbohydrates, fat, or protein for that matter, is not something that is very easily digested. To get ultimately the same number of calories from food, the digestive system has to work more if the input is fat or protein than if it were carbs. Isn't that true?

My personal experience is that I will have stomach upsets if I take high amounts of fat or protein, even if they are of vegetable origin. Carbohydrates gives the least amount of stomach distress for me. I have found that a predominantly carbohydrate concoction - rice mixed with yogurt and salt to taste - gave me quick relief during several bouts of stomach upsets.

Regards,
Rad

In an epic case of YMMV, I am the exact opposite.
Back when I used to eat carbs I was constantly hitting the Tums, Zantac, Pepto, etc. Since I have gone low-carb I have not once taken any products for heartburn/indigestion/upset stomach. Not one single time in going on 2 years. I'm sure every one of those products in my med cabinet is probably expired by now. Just goes to show how very, very different we diabetics can be.

[Evermont]

Carbs are "clean burning fuel". Digesting proteins and fats leave ash or residue. And yes, carbs are processed more quickly, which can be good or bad.

I looked up gall bladder recently and noted with interest that vertebrates have gall bladders (which help digest fats) because vertebrates eat in boluses. Huh. Horses and rats are exceptions among vertebrates in that they have no gall bladder. Double huh. Horses eat less fat (more carb). They need more clean burning fuel for quick energy? Hmm. Rats nibble all day so they don't need a gall bladder?



It's interesting how much of the diabetic condition is focused on the things in this diagram. Not shown is the liver which has like 500 different jobs to do - one of which is producing bile, a digestive fluid that is concentrated and stored in the gall bladder for when it's needed. The stomach which seems like the center of the diabetic universe if not just the anatomy, or the day. The duodenum - hack it up and presto, T2 is all fixed! Alcohol can make the duodenum more porous and can lead to greater carb sensitivity. And there's that ever lovin' pancreas.

Jeezum, I recall not so long ago being "fat dumb and happy". I'm still fat, though a bit less so. Still dumb - but I'm workin' on it. Happy, well, always a work in progress. Ya know?