hi everyone,
i realize that i will not be too popular here - LOL. low-carb diets are not healthy ones. we need a certain amount of protein each day - 100 to 200 grams for most people, depending on size. we need our 2 essential fats, omega3 and omega6 - 2 tablespoons of safflower oil, and a couple tablespoons of flax meal should be ample for most people. the rest of your diet should be filled with as much healthy carbs as possible - fruits, vegetables, and whole grains - as much unprocessed as possible.

Strangely enough, that pretty much describes the ongoing weight loss through maintainance phases of most low carb plans.

hi lisa, i hope that is true. i know i was aghast at reading "protein power", and using such silliness as deleting carrots from your diet, because they were too high in carbs. i think one thing that we should do is quit thinking in terms of "low-carb", as that places all carbohydrate foods in one bucket. rather, lets think about deleting processed sugars, and "foods" from our diet, that our bodies do not want, and replace them with REAL FOODS, that our bodies appreciate. our bodies are electrochemical systems, and like any system, they run best when they are given the correct requirements.

Yes, but unlike machines, different bodies have different requirements to run at peak performance and what some tolerate or even thrive on, others do not. There are also varying medical conditions that make it necessary to eat in a rather unbalanced way for a time to correct an existing imbalance such as insulin resistance. You seem to be rather focused on the earliest phases of Atkins which he fully admitted is unbalanced...for a purpose....and it only lasts a few weeks out of a lifetime of eating.

i was aghast at reading "protein power", and using such silliness as deleting carrots from your diet, because they were too high in carbs.

Why? There are other veggies lower in carbs and glycemic index that can provide the same (or better) amounts of beta carotine as carrots. Also, leaving them out would only be for a short while, not forever. Did you read the entire book?



To the casual reader/observer, this may seem like what low carbers do, when in fact, what most who have chosen to make this a lifestyle are doing is exactly what you are suggesting once they reach their weight loss goals and even while they are working towards their weight loss goals. ALL carbohydrates are not bad, even some higher glycemic carbs in the form of higher GI fruits and higher GI veggies are not bad in moderation for some people (higher GI doesn't work well for diabetics or insulin resistant people). There is plenty of room within a low carb lifestyle for meeting nutritional needs without eating high carb, high GI, highly processed foods. Interestingly enough, those fruits and veggies that are highest in vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals also tend to be those that are lowest in carbs and glycemic index as well. If I choose wisely, I seldom have trouble meeting my vitamin and mineral requirements even on 30 grams of carb per day. I also get 25-30 grams of fiber per day. Imagine what someone on maintainance levels of carbs between 60 and 100 grams per day can do nutrition-wise.

hi lisa,
i am referring to people en masse, not those that have particular problems, such as diabetes, or such. it is my belief that none of us differ in our requirements, by all that much, in terms of our genetic make-up. what is more important is our activity levels, and the environment in which we live. for example, on a day that i do vigourous cardio activity, i need a lot of carbs. that is true for everyone. i want to see a marathon runner, etc., who is not intaking a lot of carbs. carbs are by far and away, our best and fastest source of energy. however, on a day that i do weight training, and do not put any large strain on my body's resources, i do not need nearly as many carbohydrates. people are too focused on losing weight. the goal of nutrition is not about weight control, although correct nutrition will stabilize one's weight. the goal of nutrition is to keep the body healthy, and working as it was designed.

when you mention that i am too focused on those early stages, you could be correct. but then we should change the name of it to something other than "low carb", because low-carbohydrate diets are not optimal. let's start naming it the "optimal nutrition" diet. even in my "optimal Nutrition" diet, i would not have a first phase of low carbs. the diet that is best for an individual on day 1000 is also the same one that is best on day 1.

So do you think that someone who is 80 lbs overweight will be "healthy" if he/she "stabilizes" at that weight? Or should he/she "focus" on losing the extra pounds?



Designed for what? Spending 8 hours running down and killing a deer with a sharp rock, or spending 8 hours running down and killing a computer worm with a software patch? People don't have the same activity levels or metabolisms -- why should they have the same diets?

again, the goal of nutrition is to bring the body to its maximum health, not to bring it to some weight level. one needs to focus on the goal of optimum health. if you do that, your weight will stabilize at the point where your body is designed to be. this may not be where you want it to be, by looking in the mirror, but where your body wants to be, based on health. however, it will not be 80 pounds overweight.

if you re-read my post, i think you will find that i already said that people need different requirements, based upon their activity levels, and their environment. the more vigorous activity one does, the more carbohydrates one needs, but you never want to go as low as most of the low-carb diets talk about.

these diets give quick weight losses, which is why they are so popular, and make lots of bucks for those touting them. but the bottom line remains the same - they are not good for you. they allow too much fat, and not enough carbs. the only fat that one needs in their diets are the 2 essential fats. the body can easily manufacture all the others.

like i said in my first post - we need to meet our protein requirements, our 2 essential fats, and then the rest in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. if people followed this, they would live to their maximum, which is somewhere between 100 and 140, and would keep their 21ish energy peak into their 50's. the standard american diet (SAD) keeps people at less than 50% of their optimums, which is why they age so quickly, live with diseases their last decade, and die in their 60s and 70s (many of them.)

Currently in America alone, there are at least 20 million people that have diabetes and at least half as many again who have it and have not yet been diagnosed with it. That's a lot of people and doesn't even begin the address the number of people who are insulin resistant but have not yet developed diabetes. If that's not people en masse, I don't know what is.



Have a look through the General Excercise forum. I also read about a doctor who works for the Atkins center, although I can't remember his name, who runs marathons while following a low carb lifestyle. Again, since you're talking about people "en masse", people en masse don't run marathons and certainly don't do so on a daily basis for those that do. For those that do run marathons on a regular basis, they most likely don't need to restrict their carbs as much as an average person who does not participate in such strenuous activities on a regular basis (and I'd wager that includes most of us).




While this sounds good in theory, it doesn't seem to work as predicted in practice, when pursued through the recommended food pyramid. Americans have been exercising more and eating less fat and calories over the past couple of decades and yet heart disease, obesity and diabetes are soaring. One can have very good nutrition and still be overweight through various mechanisms besides simply too many calories. You're right in that the goal of nutrition is not weight control, it's about providing the body with optimal nutrients to function at its best but that doesn't address being overweight or give a solution for it.
Being overweight carries with it a great deal more health risks than eating in even an unbalanced manner for a period of time and we've already established that low carbing is not unbalanced if done properly; if provides the needed vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids and essential proteins that a body needs for good health.




It's called low carb, because in relation to what the average person eats in a day (300+ grams of carb) it IS low, even at maintainanace levels of 60-100 grams per day. There are a few who would need to consume less carbs than that to maintain and a few who can consume more and maintain, but 60-100 is the average. You also have not established that low carb diets are not optimal. In fact, it seems that we've established that optimal nutrition is quite possible on a level of carb intake even below 60 grams of carb per day.




Again, you have not established that too much fat (how much would that be, by the way, and which types of fat?) is bad for you and that the body has some required level of carbs. In fact, there are no "essential" carbs while there are essential fatty acids, essential amino acids and essential vitamins and minerals. Studies have shown that the body can function just as well using ketones as an energy source as it can using glucose, in some cases (heart muscle, for example), it functions better on ketones than glucose.
Studies have also shown that the amount of fat, even saturated fats, typical to a low carb diet do not have the negative impact on cardiac profiles predicted. In fact, the cardiac profiles of those following a low carb/high fat regime as opposed to a high carb/low fat regime improved more.



I won't argue with that, but nobody needs 300+ grams of carb per day. Most people even doing vigorous excercise do just fine on less than 100 grams of carb per day. Again, going as low as most of the low carb diets talk about is for the purpose of weight loss while doing moderate exercise and carb levels are increased as the individual can tolerate througout that process until maintainance is reached. Since your profile indicates that you've read Protein Power, I'll assume that you understand the physiological reasons why lowering carbs would be necessary to get to that point. Personally, I never had a problem completing a Curves For Women workout, which combines cardio with weight resistance, on 30 grams of carb per day.




This has never been shown to be true. In fact, when they interviewed centenarians about their diets and lifestyles, they did not differ greatly from their counterparts who had died at a much younger age and their cardiac profiles were not better, either. It appears that genetics plays a much greater role in how long a person will live than merely diet.
Eating correctly, however, will certainly do much to keep you healthy and energetic longer than eating incorrectly. For me, eating correctly is low carb and involves eating every food that you listed above, although most likely in very different proportions than you do.

hi lisa,
i do not know to which studies that you refer, but most studies belong in the circular file, because they have pre-determined outcomes, when said information influences people's behavior. this is tremendously true in the field of nutrition.

one does not have the same energy levels on low-carb diets, as they do when using sugar. sugar is a wonderful nutrient for the body, IN ITS CORRECT PROPORTION. people have abused their bodies through their diets, by eating lots of junk food. low-carb diets have gone too far the other way. it is scary to me that there are people who believe in limiting the amount of carrots they eat, but intaking quite a bit of animal fat is okay. all carbohydrates are not the same. all fats are not the same. we need plenty of sugar along with our essential fats, and protein.

those people living to 100 today, would be those who should be living to 140. and i do not only mean living long, but living healthily. medicine/science allows people to exist longer, not necessarily LIVE longer.

in terms of how much fat, i have stated as a starting point, 2 tablespoons of safflower oil (75% omega6, which is 28 grams of fat, and about 240 calories.) protein (probably at least 100 grams for everyone, with many having higher requirements, because of size and other variables.) the rest should be fresh produce and whole grains, because it is in these foods where we get all our phyto-nutrients, as well as our sugar. but not processed twinkies and such. as much freshly grown produce as possible. this is the biggest mistake that low-carb diets make. they do not differentiate between the carbs. and i laugh whenever i hear that potatoes are to be avoided because they have a high glycemic index. one does not need to worry about glycemic index, but rather the types of carbs they are eating. if one limited oneself to fresh produce and whole grains as one's carbohydrate intake, this would be all one would need to do. you could toss the high glycemic index out the window.

Sometimes that is true, especially with the studies that "showed" that fat is bad for us because the discounted the high amounts of carbs that the participants also ate. However...the studies that I referred to regarding the effect of low carb/high fat diets on cardiac profiles don't appear to fit the notion that there was a pre-determined outcome as the researchers readily admitted that they expected exactly the opposite outcomes (worsened cardiac profiles) that they got.



I disagree. Sugar is not a nutrient at all and has never been defined as such. Furthermore, there is no established "minimum daily requirement" for sugar. Sugar is quite harmful for most people, and I'm not talking about the natural sugars that one finds in fruits and vegetables, but the processed refined sugars and corn syrups found in most processed foods today. Sugar does not provide any essential vitamin, mineral or phytonutrient, nor does it provide any essential fatty acid or amino acid and the WHO has recently recommended that added sugars be kept to a total of 10% of caloric intake per day for all people.




Why? On what do you base that the intake of animal fat is bad?




On that we agree. Highly processed, high GI carbs do not provide your body with the same nutrition that unprocessed low GI carb do. Transfats should never be consumed.




And this was determined how?




I get the impression that you haven't read enough on the subject yet. Low carb diets make a very big distinction between the different carbs. If you disagree that glycemic index matters, you're disagreeing with a growing number of doctors and scientists. GI does matter for a lot of reasons that you seem to be unaware of. Furthermore, glycemic index IS about the types of carbs you are eating; it's how they are distinguished. Those with a high GI raise your blood sugar higher and and faster (diabetic or not) and produce a greater insulin response than those that are lower. If you don't understand the impact that this higher insulin response has on a person, you may wish to go back and re-read those sections in Protein Power that explain it in very good detail.
You might also want to consider reading Atkins For Life because it seems that the two of you are in fairly good agreement about what a healthy diet as a lifestyle for those that do not need to lose weight looks like, other than the fat content. Carrots and potatoes are not banned from a low carb lifestyle forever, depending on the individual's tolerance for them. The only thing that is to be avoided on a permanent basis are processed sugar and highly processed foods that contain added sugars and transfats.

Gymeejet..with all due respect, it seems like what we have here is your opinion that a low carb lifestyle is bad based on what I'm not quite sure since you haven't produced any studies or scientific evidence to back up your opinion thus far and don't seem to have done a great deal of reading on the subject. Furthermore, you don't seem to have a good understanding of what a low carb lifestyle IS other than the initial phases which last a short time out of a lifetime of eating.

hi lisa,
irregardless of what topic we could be debating, i could come up with studies showing that both sides are true. through life experience, i have come to realize that most "studies" would be better classified as "advertising". so i do not intend to quote any studies to you. you surely must be aware that there are many in the nutrition field who are vigorously opposed to low-carb diets.

i think you missed the main point about glycemic index. if you are eating good natural foods, you do not need to worry about it, because you will get a mix. it is only when people started eating twinkies and such, that sugar became a problem. if you eat a variety of vegetables, you do not need to worry about the glycemic index. just make sure you are eating plenty of fresh produce.

i have read tons and tons of nutritional articles in my life. but "my opinions" come from putting that into practice, both with myself, and with others whom i help. most of these doctors and researchers have never done this.

there is only one person in the nutritional field that i truly respect. he is truly a pioneer. but to my knowledge, he has never written any books about it. he simply tows boats across the harbor on his 70th or 80th birthday.

a big part of optimal health is consistent exercise. some of that should be vigorous cardiovascular exercise, to stimulate your body, help it delete toxins, etc. you will never get out of 2nd gear on a low-carb diet. if you want to shift to 3rd, 4th, and overdrive, you had better darn well have trained your muscles to store a lot of glycogen, be eating plenty of carbs.

i know on days when i don't have my full pepp, i benefit more by eating a lot of carbs that evening, moreso than i need rest.

if i recall correctly, the brain pretty much runs on sugar, and vigorous exercise demands it.

you asked how i determined the amount of fat - there is no magical formula. i at least doubled the average amount of essential fats that most books were suggesting. the one big nutritional mistake that i made was going non-fat for over a decade. and i still eat no other fat. so i want to get lots of my essential fats. i never felt any ill effects from non-fat during that period. it was only when it started to affect my sleep, that i knew something needed fixing. but i never put any toxics or other crap in me. i never smoked, etc., so my body was probably able to cope with deficient essential fats much better because of it.

you asked about animal fat. all other fats are totally unneeded. most fats carry very little nutrients with them. while natural carbohydrate foods (produce) carry tons and tons of phytonutrients that we will never be able to totally classify.

it may surprise you that there are many people whom i tell that their diets are too weighed down with carbs. there is a large group of people who basically eat very well, in terms of toxics. this is because they are eating lots of natural foods. i was one of these people. many females and many older people fall into this group. the carbs that we are consuming is not the problem. it is the LACK OF PROPER PROTEIN AND ESSENTIAL FATS. the fix is easy. one needs to get the proper protein and essential fats, and the rest fixes itself.

we can not really go to supermarkets and get real food

hi lisa,
you are distinguishing carbs strictly by GI. i am distinguishing them by good food, and crap food, which is what low carb diets do not do. to think that a potato and a twinkie are the same, if their GI happens to be the same, is absolutely ludicrous. this is what i am saying. low carb diets remind me of the blind men on the elephant. low-carbers are not seeing the whole picture.

when i am speaking sugars, i am always referring to natural foods. i am sure that at least we agree on all the processed foods are not good for us. most of that is loaded with sugar and animal fat.

hi lisa,
just to show you that i can find articles, here is one.

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/FENR/FENRv...enrv13n1p87.pdf

among other things, it states the following :

within the body, most dietary sugars are converted to glucose, a major fuel used by all cells and the primary fuel required by brain tissue for normal function. low levels of glucose in the blood will impair the brain and cause permanent mental impairment or worse - coma or death.

so "my opinions" are not just wild dreams i came up with when i was pondering the universe. they have some basis in fact. but until i put into practice any article, including this one, it had better pass the "gymeejet test" - whereby i test it on me and other people. it has been encouraging to me that whenever i get a result from something, most other people also get the same results, which allows me a greater confidence level that my body is behaving in the same fashion as the overwhelming majority.

in strenuous exercise, nothing can take the place of sugar. without it, you will do a lot more dropping than shopping - LOL.

again, sugar/carbs are important and are our best source of creating energy to do all the things our bodies do, both internally, and externally. SUGAR IS A WONDERFUL THING, in the correct amounts. we have evolved in tandem with all the other living things on this planet, and we had better darn well eat many of the foods that have evolved along with us, instead of the crap that we have manufactured in the past 100 years.

sugar is not bad - however many foods containing sugar are bad. fat is not bad - however many foods containing fat are bad. protein is not bad - however many foods containing protein are bad. iron is important. too much iron is toxic. etc. etc. etc.

once again, the correct amount of protein and essential fats are needed for most of our anabolic functions, and the good carbs for our catabolic functions.

For starters, noone has ever shown Monounsaturated Fats to be bad for you. So, I don't see any reason they should be restricted. In fact, studies have shown Monounsaturates to be good for Cholesterol. There may be a minimum intake of Omega-3s, but there should be no maximum [within reason.] Omega-3s are known to not only improve Cholesterol, but may also improve Triglycerides. Based on the above, a diet high in Monounsaturates and Omega-3s would be beneficial for the heart.

As for animal fats, Stearic Acid (primary saturated fat in Beef) has been shown to have little negative effect on Cholesterol. In fact, Beef [and Lard] are slightly higher in Monounsaturates than Saturates. Some leaner meats perform even better. Chicken and Pork are higher in Unsaturates relative to Saturates than Beef. Some fish are high in Monounsaturates, and others high in Omega-3s, but very low in Saturates. Eggs are actually relatively low in Saturated Fat. The main complaint most nutritionists have against them is their Cholesterol content. Yet, no study has proven a direct link between dietary and blood cholesterol.

As for nutrients, Beef and it juices are a particularly rich source of Potassium and B Vitamins (B6 and B12). In fact, without animal products (meat or dairy) it is very difficult, if not virtually impossible to get you RDA of B12. Pork and some lean meats are high in other vitamins and minerals.

You say we should eat whole grains because of their Nutrient content. Whole Wheat Bread has less than 5% of the vitamins/minerals it does contain (except Sodium.) Whole Grain bread is missing 4 Vitamins and Minerals entirely...Pork is missing only 2. Pork meets or exceeds the levels [found in Whole Grain Bread] of 12 vitamins. That is almost all of them. In addition, it has almost 5 times the Potassium, and less than one-third of the sodium of Whole Grain Bread. A serving of Steak has more vitamins and minerals than a serving of Whole Grain bread. About the only major nutrient they have meat beat on is Fiber (meat has no fiber.) But, compared to other lower-carb produce (Green veggies)...Whole grain bread is actually rather low in fiber. Bran is the only whole grain that even begins to compete with green vegetables on fiber content (realtive to carbs/calories). Shrimp is high in Vitamin D...Milk has to have it added. Most vegetables and grains have NO Vitamin D.

My point is that Whole Grains [and Tubers] have little nutritional value. I do not consider potatoes to be vegetables. They are botanically very disimilar to lower-glycemic, higher-fiber*, higher-nutrient* leafy vegetables. A Tuber (such as a potato) holds the plants excess starch (almost always super high GI) or sugar that a plant produces. Tubers contain only a few nutrients. I'll admit, the few nutrients they contain are off the scales. A potato has 1/4 your RDA of Vitamin C, but is it really the best way to get your Vitamin C ??? Brocolli is much higher (near 100%). Most fruits have just as much Vitamin C and Potassium...plus they also usually contain Vitamin A. A carrot has 343% of your Vitamin A, but is low in all other Vitamins and Minerals. One carrot is actually not too bad carb-wise at about 4g Net Carbs. But, it would take alot of them [and alot of carbs] to get your other vitamins.

I have no problem eating lots of fruits and vegetables...in fact, I already eat well in excess of USDA/AHA recomendations [on Atkins.] My point is that not all fruits and vegetables are as good for you as others and animal products is not always a bad thing. In fact, dairy is a rich source of Calcium. Choose vegetables that are high in fiber and vitamins/minerals, eat reasonable amounts of animal products (especially fish), and limit your consumption of grains and tubers and you will be healthy.

hi cc,
with respect to vegetables, i say eat them all, for the most part. we do not need them for their vitamin c, beta carotene, vitamin e, etc., because we can get them in pill form. but there are literally tens of thousands of chemicals that make up an apple or a potato. the health food industry thrives on it. a year doesn't go by when some phytonutrient, such as lycopene, etc. isn't touted as the world's greatest since sliced bread - LOL. so i am happy to hear that you eat lots of them.

with regards to fat, our 2 essentials are the only fats that our body can not produce. most foods high in fat, are low in nutrients, with respect to the number of calories they contain.

however, i did not say that saturated fat or mono fat was bad for you, in the sense that it is toxic. the body does use it. while most of it is stored, and used for energy, some of it is used for building processes. there is just no need to intake it, since none of us is gonna run out of fat. we will die long before that happens - LOL. and the great majority of us are eating way more than our body needs.

i won't get in the meat debate with you, other than to say that i think it is one of the worst things that our society eats.

my appearance here is based on reaching one's optimal health. the outline i have given will allow you to do that. a low carb diet will not. most of the low-carbers have this irrational hatred of sugar, as the scapegoat for all eating disorders. i have often said that sugar is the most abused substance in america. it is still also one of the most important things our bodies need, IN ITS CORRECT PROPORTION. the low-carbers limit it too much. you have swung the pendulum too far. at some point, perhaps they will find the middle of the swing, and intake a more healthy amount.

thanks for your input.