Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181   ^
Old Thu, Jan-17-13, 11:30
Artbuc Artbuc is offline
New Member
Posts: 6
 
Plan: <30 grams per day
Stats: 168/144/144 Male 68 in
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwwff
As to blood sugar and risk of diabetes, I can only offer my personal observations. I eat even a small serving of carbohydrate rich foods, even natural or paleo-approved, my blood glucose goes up and over typical normal ranges. I eat 5-10 times the calories of that carb snack but with less than 5g of carb... blood glucose doesn't even budge, and I'm satisfied for a long time. (i'm eating at energy balance, maintaining, so I no longer get freeby good numbers from being at a solid deficit)


Same here!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #182   ^
Old Thu, Jan-17-13, 17:46
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I think in an extremely low fat diet, you might run up against difficulty in growing fat just because any fat deposited, you'd have to synthesize in the first place. With the Kitivans, the fat is almost all coconut--medium chain triglycerides that the body handles differently from most fats. So it's sort of a special case--but that doesn't matter, there's lots of lean peoples that eat a similar macronutrient ratio, with little obesity.

I think there's sort of a question of at what point carbs make people overeat, if they do. Maybe french fries would make people over eat, where potatoes with butter added to appetite might not. Maybe it's less palatable that way, I prefer to think it's easier to satisfy separate appetites for glucose and fat by eating that way.

If not the carbohydrate hypothesis, why does low carb work? You could say low palatability... but lots of people tried low fat, lost the weight, couldn't stick to it long term... But maybe it's a reward thing? If low carb is high-reward without being hyperpalatable, where low fat is low palatability (without being particularly rewarding), there'd be room for us low carbers to continue in our smugness.
Reply With Quote
  #183   ^
Old Thu, Jan-17-13, 17:54
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,140
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser

If not the carbohydrate hypothesis, why does low carb work? You could say low palatability... but lots of people tried low fat, lost the weight, couldn't stick to it long term... But maybe it's a reward thing? If low carb is high-reward without being hyperpalatable, where low fat is low palatability (without being particularly rewarding), there'd be room for us low carbers to continue in our smugness.


How are you distinguishing between palatability and reward? I understand this is probably Stephen Guyenet's terminology, but his whole argument seems circular to me. What is he really trying to say?
Reply With Quote
  #184   ^
Old Thu, Jan-17-13, 18:56
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Palatability and reward... okay. A chocolate bar tastes good, so it's palatable. If it takes five pounds of chocolate to satisfy you (high sugar hershey's bar...), then it's low-reward. If a couple ounces satisfies (85 percent dark chocolate), then it's high reward. Took me a while to grok that. With the chocolate bar... if it's the cocoa-fix that you're looking for, you can see how dark chocolate would be more rewarding.
Reply With Quote
  #185   ^
Old Thu, Jan-17-13, 19:36
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,140
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Great explanation. I get it now. Thanks. So any sort of sugary junk food would be highly palatable and low reward? Or we could just call them high carb and avoid them.
Reply With Quote
  #186   ^
Old Mon, Jan-28-13, 17:23
Nikita82's Avatar
Nikita82 Nikita82 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 209
 
Plan: HCG Diet
Stats: 215.5/191.1/155 Female 177cm
BF:Human twinkie
Progress: 40%
Location: Newcastle NSW Australia
Default

That makes sense. IDK, some people are more sensitive to certain foods than others. I like the example of comparing cigarettes or alcohol to grains or sugar.

It's bad for you, causes irritation, disease, weight gain etc etc for many people. But we still crave it. Just because sugar and grains haven't been regulated like drugs and alcohol doesn't mean they won't hurt anyone.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:24.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.