Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   More on Diet and Carbohydrates
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 243 (752124)
03-08-2015 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
03-08-2015 8:08 PM


Re: Anatomy of a Low-Carb Diet
Anything regarding serving sizes/proportions?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 8:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 8:15 PM Jon has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 137 of 243 (752125)
03-08-2015 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Jon
03-07-2015 6:49 PM


Re: The pervasiveness of the low fat diet
Perhaps it would be clearer to say that although you recognize the pervasiveness of the low fat recommendations you don't consider them to have been very influential on American diet as Percy and I do, let alone your own diet or that of people you know. Is this a fair statement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Jon, posted 03-07-2015 6:49 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Jon, posted 03-08-2015 9:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 138 of 243 (752127)
03-08-2015 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Jon
03-08-2015 8:12 PM


Re: Anatomy of a Low-Carb Diet
Not serving sizes, that I've found so far anyway, but the pyramid shows the relative proportions recommended: first proteins, then vegetables etc. I don't like everything about that pyramid myself. I'd make vegetables either the biggest portion or equal to proteins, and put fruit up at the top with the grains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Jon, posted 03-08-2015 8:12 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 243 (752136)
03-08-2015 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
03-08-2015 8:12 PM


Re: The pervasiveness of the low fat diet
I can agree with that, sure.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 8:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 140 of 243 (752174)
03-09-2015 12:03 PM


Different Metabolic Types
I'm wondering if those who haven't been particularly affected by the pervasive advice about avoiding fats and cholesterol are people who aren't really attracted to fatty foods anyway, so the guidelines didn't require any dietary adjustment?
Thoughts?
This would fit with the idea of different Metabolic Types that some nutritionists have been emphasizing these days. If you're a Carb Type you do well on a high carb diet with less protein and fat, if you're a Protein Type you do better on a low carb diet with more protein and fat. And there are Mixed Types too of course.
There are many Alternative Nutrition sites out there that discuss these types. Mercola is one, Lifestrong is another, Oz is another.
Here's a quiz from Dr. Oz to determine which type you are.

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Jon, posted 03-09-2015 12:50 PM Faith has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 243 (752191)
03-09-2015 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
03-09-2015 12:03 PM


Re: Different Metabolic Types
I'm wondering if those who haven't been particularly affected by the pervasive advice about avoiding fats and cholesterol are people who aren't really attracted to fatty foods anyway, so the guidelines didn't require any dietary adjustment?
I hate most fatty food. I eat pizza and fried chicken; other than that, I usually cut the fat off my meat, blot my bacon, and drink skim milk.
I am slowly opening up to butter, which I used to hate, but I've found that it tastes good when properly prepared.
Here's a quiz from Dr. Oz to determine which type you are.
That quiz was a bust. My result:
You got: Type A
You are a metabolic Type A. Common characteristics of this metabolism type are talkative and outgoing personality. You have a strong appetite but experience fatigue often. Type A's love salty foods and are prone to anxiety.
I specifically answered that I was not outgoing and that I don't have a strong appetite. The only thing it 'got right' was fatigue/anxiety and salty foods.
Pretty pathetic considering that the results amount to little more than a copy-paste list of my answers from the quiz.
Of course, that's about what I'd expect to see coming from a 'doctor' who's nothing more than a pill peddler and supplement seller.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 12:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 12:55 PM Jon has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 142 of 243 (752194)
03-09-2015 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Jon
03-09-2015 12:50 PM


I hate most fatty food. I eat pizza and fried chicken; other than that, I usually cut the fat off my meat, blot my bacon, and drink skim milk.
Very strange that you got Type A. I would have expected you to score as a clear Carb Type, especially from what you are saying here, that does confirm my guess that you were immune to the anti-fat blitz because it isn't your thing anyway.
I LOVE fats, high fat milk, cream, butter, egg yolks, bacon, fatty beef, could eat all the crispy tasty skin off a roast chicken or turkey and even leave the meat behind. This made following the anti-fat advice a real hardship for me.
Interesting that you would choose salty foods as a snack though, since that is supposed to be tied to the Protein Type, which I pretty clearly am. Maybe that's what threw off the quiz. Or maybe you're a Mixed Type. Or maybe the quiz is useless anyway as you suggest.
I wanted to find a quiz and Oz is the only one who had one that didn't require signing up for a bunch of email spam.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Jon, posted 03-09-2015 12:50 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Jon, posted 03-09-2015 3:47 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 143 of 243 (752209)
03-09-2015 1:50 PM


another quiz
In case anyone is interested in a more thorough quiz about Nutritional Typing and is willing to put up with receiving all kinds of promotional products and risking email spam, here's Mercola's .
As with many quizzes I found some of the questions too hard to answer and am not sure the results amount to much. But it's maybe interesting for curiosity's sake.

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 243 (752240)
03-09-2015 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
03-09-2015 12:55 PM


Very strange that you got Type A. I would have expected you to score as a clear Carb Type, especially from what you are saying here, that does confirm my guess that you were immune to the anti-fat blitz because it isn't your thing anyway.
Well, I'm really an eat-whatever-I-want type. It just so happens that fats aren't something I particularly care to eat.
... could eat all the crispy tasty skin off a roast chicken or turkey and even leave the meat behind.
I always leave the skin behind.
Interesting that you would choose salty foods as a snack though, since that is supposed to be tied to the Protein Type,
Well, it was salty or sweet. Too many sweets make me sick, but all I get from salty is thirst. Probably one of my favorite salty foods is jerky. So their might be something to the link between salt and protein.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 12:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 5:55 PM Jon has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 145 of 243 (752246)
03-09-2015 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Jon
03-09-2015 3:47 PM


Muffin or Flaky Pastry Type?
The way you dislike fat makes you a Carb Type it seems to me but maybe they need a category of Mostly Carb with some Protein features thrown in.
Before I knew there were at least two different types of eaters I would have expected people to love the chicken skin and that anyone who threw it away (or preferred skim milk) must be doing it because of the health advice out there. I suppose they would classify jerky on the Protein side, but the usual test is potato chips, which is my downfall.
I came out as a Mixed Type on Mercola's quiz. I knew I wasn't consistently choosing the heaviest protein type meals they described, they really didn't appeal to me, and that's apparently what made the difference. Also didn't go for the carbs though, often chose fish with salad. That's VERY appealing to me and I always thought of it as Atkins style eating.
I've had a rule of thumb for some time to tell who's a carb type versus a protein type that may not be worth anything, especially since you aren't much of a sweet eater either, but I used to meet friends at a local bakery for coffee and something sweet and discovered that there are people who love muffins, heavy muffins with raisins and nuts or cranberries or some such, and I really not only wouldn't choose them but almost dislike them -- too dry and crumbly for me. I have to consider the Muffin people to be Carb Types. My choice was always a flaky buttery pastry with creamy custard and lemon or raspberry jam.
Just to see if my rule of thumb means anything, would either of these choices particularly appeal to you and not the other? Or would you maybe skip the sweet altogether?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Jon, posted 03-09-2015 3:47 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Jon, posted 03-09-2015 6:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 152 by ringo, posted 05-27-2015 4:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 243 (752255)
03-09-2015 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Faith
03-09-2015 5:55 PM


I suppose they would classify jerky on the Protein side, but the usual test is potato chips, which is my downfall.
I like chips, but not usually the fried kind. I avoid snacking in general though, because I prefer to save my appetite for a real meal.
I've had a rule of thumb for some time to tell who's a carb type versus a protein type that may not be worth anything, especially since you aren't much of a sweet eater either, but I used to meet friends at a local bakery for coffee and something sweet and discovered that there are people who love muffins, heavy muffins with raisins and nuts or cranberries or some such, and I really not only wouldn't choose them but almost dislike them -- too dry and crumbly for me. I have to consider the Muffin people to be Carb Types. My choice was always a flaky buttery pastry with creamy custard and lemon or raspberry jam.
Just to see if my rule of thumb means anything, would either of these choices particularly appeal to you and not the other? Or would you maybe skip the sweet altogether?
I can eat any amount of sweets when coffee is involved. I think I would prefer a muffin as part of a breakfast, though; whereas I could eat something like a jelly-filled pastry anytime of the day.
Not to jump around the topic, too much, but I'd like to get into talking about the Atkins (and other low-carb) diet again.
One of the big areas where Americans fail in following the USDA guidelines is in the overall amount of food they consume and the type of carbs (as caffeine's chart in Message 45 shows). I have a feeling that the Atkins diet has similar restrictions on servings and type of fats; I know Atkins is restrictive of carbohydrates in the same way the USDA has been: focus on whole-grains, etc.
I think getting information on specific serving sizes, proportions, and types of preferred fats and proteins would be very helpful. I'll try to find some, but if you find any, would you mind posting it?
Edited by Jon, : tense

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 5:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 8:11 PM Jon has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 147 of 243 (752264)
03-09-2015 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Jon
03-09-2015 6:25 PM


Atkins servings
Now that I'm fairly convinced I understand why some people weren't affected by the low fat diet guidelines as I was and so many people I know have been, I'm ready to think about the other questions.
Well, I looked for my Atkins book, which I was sure I'd seen recently, couldn't find it, then checked Google asking about portion and serving sizes on Atkins and found a forum discussion saying it's definitely important but then it wasn't about specific portions of carbs or proteins or fat, which is what I think you wanted to know, but just a general guide to overall calorie count.
Does (portion) size matter? : Atkins Diet Forum : Active Low-Carber Forums
Sorry.
What I remember when I was doing it, which probably isn't worth much, but oh well, is that the first phase is pretty much three meals a day (it can be more) of all the protein you want to eat, it's up to your appetite, you eat until you're no longer hungry but you're not to overeat, it's a subjective thing, and you are not restricted on what he calls "normal" fats, meat fats in this case, but added butter on your vegetables if you like. You are limited to 20 grams of carbs a day, most or all of which is to be from greens, (carb-free )salad dressing or butter as appropriate, and nothing else. That's only the "Induction Phase" though, which is to last two weeks, though some people prolong it who want to lose more weight faster. Then you start adding back carbs slowly while you're still maintaining weight loss. And that's where it all gets fuzzy. I don't remember anything about portions or servings, just that it seemed to be comparable to most diet recommendations as far as that goes.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Jon, posted 03-09-2015 6:25 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 8:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 148 of 243 (752271)
03-09-2015 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
03-09-2015 8:11 PM


Re: Atkins servings
Here's the whole diet spelled out and it includes lots of information on serving sizes for each phase of the four-phase diet plan. This site is a general weight-loss and medical site, not the Atkins site itself, but they claim to be presenting the Atkins diet.
Low Carb Diet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 8:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 149 of 243 (758028)
05-18-2015 7:04 PM


Fed Up
I watched the documentary film Fed Up on Netflix last night and it reminded me of this thread. It's focus is childhood obesity and the contribution of sugar consumption to this problem. There wasn't really anything in it that I hadn't read or heard before, but I think it might be worth a watch for anyone who can get access to it.
The key points from the film related to the effects on health of sugars and processed foods and the food industry's role (including USDA) in promoting these foods and blocking legislation to regulate their marketing to children.
Responding to the low-fat movement, the film claims, food producers began removing fats from their products and replacing them with sugars (to maintain attractive tastes). The claim made in the video is that sugars are more responsible for the metabolic imbalances that result in obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. than the fats they replaced.
The film is also as much about politics as it is about food science, particularly in their investigation of school lunch programs, but that might be off topic here, I don't knowI'll let someone else test those waters.
Anyway, if anyone wants to watch it, there it is. If anyone wants to discuss it, here I am.
Edited by Jon, : Link

Love your enemies!

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 150 of 243 (758508)
05-27-2015 12:52 PM


Demonstrating that Saturated Fat Doesn't Cause Heart Disease
The primary foundation of the modern nutritional advice of the USDA, AHA (American Heart Association) and ADA (American Diabetes Association) is that intake of saturated fat is associated with elevated risk of heart disease, stroke, obesity and diabetes. For the past couple weeks I've been reading The Big Fat Surprise by science writer Nina Teicholz, which explores how saturated fat got the rap for heart disease. The reasons are instructive in the ways that research can go awry, but near the end of her book she references the 2010 paper Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease by Ronald M. Krauss et al.. It found that saturated fat was not associated with increased risk of CHD [Coronary Heart Disease], stroke or CVD (CardioVascular Disease). This study is evidently beginning to have an impact on the internal scientific debate on the effects of saturated fat in the diet.
While I haven't yet finished The Big Fat Surprise, it's apparent by now that it reaches the same conclusions as Gary Taubes in his book Good Calories, Bad Calories, that the focus on saturated fat as the cause of increased rates of heart disease, diabetes, stroke and cancer (the diseases of civilization) has been misplaced, and that the resulting increased intake of carbohydrates has been largely responsible for the obesity and diabetes epidemic. Death rates from heart disease and stroke have fallen around 35-40% over the past 15 years or so, but much of that is due to improved interventions rather than the success of the dominant nutritional dietary advice to lower saturated fat intake.
Much official dietary advice is just a caution to avoid too much or too little of all kinds of foods, but there are two messages that come across most clearly. One is that saturated fat increases the risk of heart disease and should be avoided. The other is that carbohydrates are better for you, though sugar and refined carbohydrates should be avoided or minimized, and that complex carbohydrates, usually associated with high fiber content, are better for you. But no health risks are associated with carbohydrates. Most people would conclude from guidelines like the USDA's that sugar is better for you than saturated fat, when the reality is that saturated fat is good for health, especially heart health because it improves the HDL/LDL ration, and it increases the proportion of good LDL (low density LDL) versus bad LDL (high density LDL), and it reduces the level of triglycerides in the blood. And saturated fat is far, far more healthy for you than sugar.
In other words, we have enough data now to know the existing nutritional guidelines regarding saturated fat versus carbohydrates is wrong. Vegetable based fats (polyunsaturated fats like corn oil, and excluding the few monounsaturated fats like olive oil) are the ones that were touted as better for you for so long, and this includes the partially hydrogenated fats that were eventually discovered to contain dangerous trans-fats that can substitute for normal fats in cell walls and disrupt the cell's ability to regulate what passes in and out, and that's not the only risk, just the one we understand best. The shift away from partially hydrogenated fats has led to greater use of hydrogenated fats that introduce a host of artificial fatty acids whose health effects have not yet been studied but which are deemed healthy simply because of the logic that because they're derived from vegetable sources that they must be healthy. But dangerous trans-fats also derived from vegetable sources, therefore this logic is wrong. We know no more today about the dangers of fully hydrogenated fats in our foods than we did about the partially hydrogenated fats in our foods 20 years ago.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix muddled 2nd sentence in the last paragraph about polyunsaturated fats and partially hydrogenated fats.

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Jon, posted 05-27-2015 4:07 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024