Interesting to note that too much sugar (natural or otherwise) also suppresses the immune system.

http://www.immunesystemetc.com/Sugar.html

the post that you deleted was obviously not spam. that site, where i purchase my juice concentrates, is also the same site where i first heard of your site, as they believe in low-carb. so please print the whole story, not just part of it. i am in no way connected with that site, and you know that.

Actually, we both know it's your site, the same you promoted in your previous troll incarnation.

Wa'il

i am not promoting "too much sugar". i am promoting getting the correct nutrients in our body, so that the body can work as it was optimally designed to do.

i am saying err on the side of "too much" rather than "too little", but that does not mean 10 times too much, but rather make sure that you get enough. this is much different than the "too much sugar" levels that cause many problems.

you just crossed the line. this is an absolute lie. i will not respond to any more of your posts.

Really? You don't consider 450 grams of carb in a day too much? That's how much one of your daily menus posted very early in this thread came out to after I entered it into Fitday.com with the exact amounts you listed.
Good thing you exercise a lot...including giving your pancreas quite a workout!

Same here, for now, but thanks for the entertainment. You're not a bad troll at all, it's a tough art form!

Wa'il

if you calculated it to be that much, i believe you. when i do my vigorous cardio, i do need lots of it. but again, this is me personally, because i use it. i am not advocating any particular amount for any particular person, because our activity levels are different. even for me, my carb intake can be quite different. i do always eat those 2 protein concoctions that i mentioned very early on, giving me most of my protein and essential fats that i eat in a day.

if i run low on sugar during my cardio routine, it is a real killer. once my body has given me the sign, it is already too late. if i stop immediately, the after affects are not too bad, but in the past, i have often been stubborn, finished my routine, and paid dearly for it the next day.

if i have enough carbs to do my whole routine, i can do it and feel great and energetic afterwards. i am very familiar with what i need to do for my exercise routines, and i do just that.

LOL...too bad your poor pancreas doesn't know that. All it knows is that you have 450 grams of carb (sugar essentially) that need to be cleared out of your bloodstream because in order for you to use it, it has to first enter your bloodstream and then the pancreas has to produce sufficient insulin to move it out of your bloodstream into the cells where it can be either used or stored.
And you report doing this for the past 20 years or so? Dude...if I were you, I'd be getting my circulating insulin levels checked!

.

Or your environment and considering that you live in an environment that is known for poor air quality, I'd start that research now if I were you.

Not in specific amounts, no. But in reality, you are since you keep insisting (without giving any practical guidelines as in percentages, grams, ounces, etc..) that we [controlled carbers] are not getting enough. All of your recommendations are highly subjective (ample, plenty, adequate...ample, plenty and adequate in relation to what...starvation?? The typical American diet? What?). If you are not advocating any particular amount for any particular person, what on earth are you still doing here? One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results!
We established that the majority of us are most likely getting ample essential proteins and fats. Your argument then turned to your opinion (not backed up by any credible studies as they relate to saturated fat and low or lower carb intake) that we get too much saturated fat. Then we went to "your brain prefers glucose and won't run as well on ketones", again not backed up by any credible studies, which you now claim naively don't exist because there's no financial motivation to have them?
No argument that higher activity levels require higher carb levels (again, very subjective as to how much higher) in healthy, normal weight individuals, but considering that 25-30% of the population is estimated to have metabolic syndrome, quite a few more to have frank diabetes, PCOS or some other medical issue that has an underlying metabolic component and more than 60% of the population is overweight (a symptom of an underlying biological cause in many cases), who on earth does that leave? Add to that the fact that maybe 5% of the population at most engages in the type of physical activity for the duration of time that you report and you are down to a very slim (no pun intended) audience indeed and you won't likely find too many of those types of people here!
The majority of people here are here because they are overweight and/or have medical issues that they are addressing with low carb and have failed to control either with the type of diet that you are prescribing. Quite frankly, you are preaching to the totally wrong audience. If you really want to help people, go find an audience who is very physically active, normal weight and has no medical or metabolic issues that they are addressing and I wish you luck in finding such an audience.

my physiology book has 1000 pages in it, with perhaps 1 page devoted to protein catabolism. point being - book was not written to promote any one topic.

the only people that read physiology books are those who are forced to read them, for the most part. to think that their purpose could influence the masses, is a joke beyond the next century.

most of the information in a physiology book are not gonna influence people anyways. whether it is the left ventricle or the right auricle of the heart that does a function, does not make a difference in the way people live.

so you say, what about just the information on "protein catabolism", for example, or "what fuel the brain uses" ? could that piece of info be biased ? there is always a possibility. today, you have any one of a 100+ studies that you will gladly attempt to intimidate me, that i will succumb to the reasoning that low-carb is correct. might i ask you to produce the 100+ studies about "protein catabolism" done back at the same time as the information from which the text printed ? might it be perhaps because no one was attempting to sell anyone anything based upon that info back at that time ?

i am only attempting to reach the non-biased reader, who has not made up their mind, in regards to the health of low-carb diets. while there are few absolutes in this world, i am confident that the non-biased reader will be able to determine the levels of probability in regards to the integrity of the information found in a physiology text book, when compared to that of a study, that today is worth millions if not billions to a group of people.

actually, it has been 30+ years. i would be interested to hear from you after 30+ years of low-carbing. of course, by then i will have 60+ years on my diet. just when do you expect my pancreas to keel over ? i suppose i could wait another 50 years to see if i am doing anything dangerous ?

well, you got me on that one. although luckily for me, i don't get the brunt of it.

well, i never expect to hear you admit that you were wrong, but because you had no objections, i take that as a tacit agreement that the first article was completely flawed.

now i have read the 2nd article. i really think you need to take a better look at some of these articles. this second article is a study on 7 obese individuals. that is somewhat significant all on its own. not so much because there were only 7, but because they were all obese. there is no way to know whether there were really more or not, as many studies have lots of people, and then they pull out only the ones that they want to keep. now please, don't show your naivette, and tell me that you are surprised that they might do that !!

but their first statement is that first they went fasting, then on a 1000-calorie mixed diet for 4 days, and then a ketogenic diet for 10 days. then they never ever mention the mixed diet again. they simply compare the results of fasting with the ketogenic diet, and the ketogenic diet wins hands down over fasting. BIG FRIGGIN DEAL. fasting is a terrible thing to do.

while you do present some good articles (i especially enjoyed the one about fat/sugar and oxygen/carbon dioxide consumption), so far these first two are absolutely terrible. i would suggest you eliminate both of them from your arsenal. i will attempt to look at the 3rd and 4th later, but want to get back to all the older posts now.

I trust text books, for the most part. i do not trust studies, for the most part. you show me a textbook that claims that the brain runs equally well on ketones

I have said this before but I will say it again because I do not understand....I don't know about anyone else but in my world, the textbooks used in my university are based on studies. Scientific studies by reasearchers. They are not opinions pulled out of thin air. And IMO, in some of the cases, if we are talking tainted research here, people going for their Ph.D doing research will write a textbook and they have to prove or disprove something in order to achieve this Ph.D. Do you not think, Gymeejet, that their studies just may be biased? So although you may deem this textbook to be an almighty source of information, it may even be less valid than the recent research available.