hi ws,
a lot of that depends on the type of foods one is eating. fruits, especially apples and bananas, are especially filling for people that are not used to eating lots. this is just my surmise - i think our stomachs have some sort of sensor mechanisms that tell us how full we are, by volume. i remember when i first started my change from eating poorly to eating well, i was not used to eating high-volume, low density foods (i.e. ones that contain a lot of water), and i would get full more quickly. today, i can sit down and eat 3 bananas and 2 apples, and then my protein meal, and still not be real full, if i have been exercising.

tamarian,
perhaps we can start anew. to my knowledge, my diet suggestions have never been a fad. it is not the low-fat, high-carb diet of before. the addition of a LARGE DOSAGE of essential fats, along with ample protein, changes it completely. so without any popular diet, i do not know that there would be any particular studies on it that would suit you.

i know you guys believe in all these studies. believe me, i more than understand, since i used to be just like that. while i know i can not change your mind, i also know that you are putting way too much confidence in them. i could give you many examples, but here is one that comes to mind, simply because it had bugged me a lot.

i know you guys are well read, currently. probably much more so than myself, because i tend not to believe most stuff. and i do not know how old you are, so you may not be aware. i got started on my health kick about 30 years ago. at that time, every health book, every article i could find preached the same thing about protein consumption - for the body to use protein for anabolic purposes, it had to be complete protein consumed at roughly the same time. the aminos that were left over, could only be burned for fuel. this was sacrosanct at the time - no one dared to go against that rule. well in the past 5-10 years, they have found that "absolute positive fact" was not true, after all. we simply break our protein down, and store the amino acids separately, and call for them when we need them. the other thing that used to bug me is that i could read 25 different articles about protein quantities, and they were all over the farm - as low as 30 grams to as high as 125. today, i am sure i take in 200+ on most days.

i am very much like thomas - i want to see the scars for my own self. i am experiencing an aging process that i have yet to see. my original goal was to be about 75% as good or energetic, when i turned 35, as i was when i was 21. at the time, that seemed to be a very optimistic goal, that i hoped to reach, but was not sure if it was possible. to be 48, and have the energy level and lack of health problems that i do, is amazing to me. never in my wildest dreams did i think this could happen, back at 21. because of my personal experience, i have very strong convictions. i don't expect you to fully understand that, as it is an experiential thing. but that does not mean it is any less true - it just does not have "studies" by people who are making some pretty big bucks, selling it. you guys seem to feel comfortable with studies, while i need to experience it. i use studies, but do not let them use me. before i accept anything as fact, i have to prove it to myself. perhaps this is my pessimism shining through. in any case, i am starting anew. any problems we had before, have been deleted.

lisa, i did not get to read your long post. i will get back to you when i have more time.

On the eating fruit side, one apple has 80 calories (or there about). One Atkins bars has 150 calories.

If I eat just an apple, I am hungrier in 15 minutes than I was before I actually went to get a snack. So when I am hungry, it's difficult to watch the quantity (then you get into the vending machine, candybar, etc etc). Same holds true to anything with sugar in it. Whereas, if I eat say a large dill pickle, it does the trick usually, and I am not hungry for several hours. This, of course, might be just me.

On the other hand, a cup of blueberries (we pick them ourselves) doesn't have the apple effect on me. This is what Lisa was referring to when she mentioned GI scale.

So for me, it's eat high GI carbs (or sugar) and I get hungry. Eat low GI carbs or very few carbs, and I don't get hungry. I can eat a 200 calorie low-carb breakfast (3 bacon strips, coffee) and not be hungry till 2:00 in the afternoon or eat a 500 calorie low-fat (grapefruit, toast, skim milk) breakfast and be hungry within the same hour.

I, along with others, have to eat this way to maintain good health. Boy, I sure would love to be able to eat sweet stuff again, but my health is more important than that.

BTW, I do appreciate you civil tones with everyone.

Later,
wsgts

Just for Reference --

2 tbsp Safflower Oil = 240 kcal [from fat]
2 tbsp Flax Seeds = 118 kcal (-17.84: Protein) = 100 kcal (-6.08: Net Carbs) = 93.98 kcal [from fat]
200g Protein = 800 kcal [from protein]

1500 kcal: 22% Fat/25% Carbs/53% Protein
2000 kcal: 17% Fat/43% Carbs/40% Protein
2500 kcal: 13% Fat/55% Carbs/32% Protein
3000 kcal: 11% Fat/62% Carbs/27% Protein

1500 kcal: 94g Carbs
2000 kcal: 215g Carbs
2500 kcal: 344g Carbs
3000 kcal: 465g Carbs

Of course, this is based on Produce Calories being 100% carbs. So, the actual carb counts would be lower...especially if he eats Avocados, Nuts, Legumes, Olives, or other produce high in unsaturates. I don't remember if he indicated what his caloric intake was. But, the number 1600 is sticking in my mind for some reason. So, if he is taking in 1600 kcal/day, eating 200g+ protein...then his carb intake would actually be around maintnance levels [for most LC plans,] especially if he eats some unsaturate-rich produce (olives, avocados, nuts, and legumes).

If he was getting his produce entirely from potatoes [which I doubt,] his net carb intake [at 1600 kcal] would be 97g*. If they came from carrots, it would be 77g*. If [as is likely,] it is a mix of greens, tubers, legumes, nuts, etc...the net carb count could be even lower. His numbers are not very far off for a person who needs 1500 kcal/day [give or take.] The fat is too low and carbs too high for those needing 2000-3000 kcal/day IMHO. I have no complaints about the protein content.

My main issue is that he doesn't specify what types of produce to eat. For some people, this could become a diet composed almost entirely of bread and potatoes...which is what put alot of the folks on this board where they are today. You need plenty of green (fiber/nutrient rich) vegetables and nutrient rich fruits. Just saying "eat produce" does not insure a properly balanced diet. You could theoretically fill your diet out with produce, but entirely exclude 4 food groups (meat/legumes/nuts, dairy, vegetables, and fruits)...eating whole grains.

*Net Carbs = Total Carbs - Fiber. Fiber is not counted [as a carb] on most LC Diets.

hi lisa,
i do not have much to add that i have not already said, but i am doubtful that you have tried my diet, where there is a large amount of essential fats and quite a bit of protein, along with the carbs.
HOWEVER :

hi lisa and ws,
i can buy that you guys have some problems with sugar metabolism. i suspect that it was mainly because of past dietary abuses/inadequacies/whatever label you want to call it. in otherwards, i do not believe that it is of a genetic nature. now whether that damage is permanent or not, i am not sure. and even if my diet would eventually prove to be better for you, i can also buy that there may be a long interim process by which you very gradually added carbs back to your diet.

what i would love to see is a friendly, scientific battle with you guys, IF IT IS YOUR CLAIM THAT YOUR DIET WOULD BE BETTER FOR PEOPLE FROM THE GET-GO.

i would love to have 100 2-year-olds, train them with my food regimen, monitor their blood tests, use whatever supplements they needed, and you do the same with another 100 2-year-olds, with your dietary regimen. we could then monitor them throughout their entire lives. i think my team would trounce you guys - LOL, in terms of overall health, energy, longevity, etc. i know what i am experiencing, and i do not believe i have any genetic uniqueness that makes my body better than any other body. but the only way to prove this to both myself and others, would be to see the results of others on my diet regimen.

hi cc,
those numbers were not intended to define what i ate, but more as starting points for people. i know my overall fat percentage will be abysmally small in your eyes. and i truly have no idea how many calories and protein i get each day. like i said, it can vary wildly, depending on my activity level. i took the day off from the beach today. but here is what i ate yesterday. i add stevia and flavoring (many of them essential oils) to stuff, and nutrient powders, but i am omitting things that have very little caloric input.

my main staple is what i call my protein concoction. i eat this twice every single day, as it is my main protein/fat/anabolic building food. i am actually weighing things currently, so it will be the first time that i have this accurate of a measurement.
1)60 grams of protein powder (half milk protein, half soy protein).
2)15 grams of an equal mixture of alfalfa leaf powder, grean tea powder, and kelp powder.
3)30 grams of nutritional yeast, which is almost exactly 2 servings. each serving is 8 g protein, 1 gram sugar and 1/2 gram of fat.
4)10 grams of equal mixture of chlorella/spirulina/green barley grass powders.
5)32 grams of carob powder - enough to make the mixture a dark brown, instead of icky green - LOL.
6)15 grams of natural herb powders. equal mixtures of peppermint, spearmint, hawthorne berry, black walnut, fennel, parsley leaf, milk thistle seed, bee pollen, siberian ginseng, saw palmetto, licorice root, horsetail, coriander seed, cumin seed, ginkgo leaf, eyebright, catnip, bilberry leaf, and celery seed.
7)1.5 tablespoons of safflower oil.

again, the above concoction i take religiously twice every day, irregardless of my activity levels. yesterday i went to the beach and did my cardio. here is the rest of what i ate. currently the fruit in season and cheapest for me the past few weeks have been green grapes, watermelon and cantaloupe. i ate 1 pound 10 ounces of grapes, and 1 cantaloupe (the one in the frig currently weighs 3 pounds, 5.7 ounces). but note that the pounds of grapes are just that, as the remaining twig weighs next to nothing, but the actual fruit of the melon is a lot less than its weight.

i bring 2 workout drinks during the day. each has appoximately 30 grams of whey protein and 6 ounces of juice concentrate (pineapple in one and apple in the other.)

when i came home, i ate another bag of grapes about the same size. i ate 2 servings of 60 grams of my milk/soy protein with another approximately 6 ounces of pineapple juice concentrate. (60 grams plus 6 ounces in each one)

then the last thing i eat in most evenings is 40 grams of flax meal, which turns out to be almost exactly 6 tablespoons, which according to the bag would be 13.5 grams of fat and 9 grams of protein. i also dring my apple cider drink, where i put in my amino acid powder supplements, which weighs 5 grams.

now this is a day at the beach, in the sun, exercising vigorously, so the amount of water intake is probably extremely high. the days when i lift weights will have a much different look, and there are at least 2 days a week where i go to the restaurant and get my fresh salad.

Blanket statements like this are quite inflammatory, often untrue and typical of the prejudice rampant in society today. If you have a weight problem, it must be all your fault. Yes, some people wind up with carbohydrate intolerances because of dietary abuse. Others develop them because of disease processes, in my case PCOS and the corresponding hyperinsulinism that goes with it. First it lead to hypoglycemia, later diabetes. The excess insulin also leads to weight gain, often on a diet of 1,200 calories or less. 5-7% of women in the US have PCOS. Genetic? Nobody knows and if you can figure it out, you'll be a multi-millionaire as well as quite a few of your descendents after you. Ditto for hypothyroid, hypoglycemia and diabetes.
You can believe that this is all dietary related or due to dietary abuse, but you would be hard-pressed to prove your belief.
If I were to apply your way of eating to myself, I would be on insulin in no time and no amount of time, exercise or careful re-introduction of carbs is going to change that. When your beta cells are burned out, they're gone for good.



Unless you have some organic cause for this (a tumor, for example), this should be a pretty big clue that something is wrong with your diet. You need fat in your diet for prostaglandin synthesis. Prostaglandins are an arachidonic acid metabolite. Where do you find arachidonic acid? Primarily in beef fat and egg yolks (saturated fats).



LOL...and I'd wish you lots of luck because once those 2 year olds start school and their classmates (and teachers too) introduce them to the delights of Twinkies and Ding Dongs, it would be all over with unless you planned to have someone stay with each child 24/7 to make sure that they didn't eat something not on the plan. I have yet to meet someone who ate ONLY what was good for them 100% of the time, even as an adult, and never ate something, even unknowingly, that wasn't.


What you seem to keep missing is that the majority of us are getting good nutrition. We're getting plenty of protein. We're getting plenty of essential fatty acids. We're getting plenty of vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals from veggies and low glycemic fruits. So where's the problem? About the only argument you can pose about the difference between low carb and what you are doing is that we don't get nearly the amount of carbs that you do and have not posted any proof that the amount of fat in our diets is harming our health or preventing us from getting proper amounts of nutrients or that the level of carbs that you are eating and recommending is actually needed for optimal health. As for not being able to exercise without carbs, several people have posted refuting that as well and I've posted studies showing that, if anything, athletic performance is improved with a higher percentage of calories coming from fats.




Nobody made any such assertion, except perhaps you. As I pointed out earlier, no one diet works optimally for everyone, although I think it would benefit most people to pay closer attention to the glycemic index and glycemic load of the foods they are eating. Most of us are doing this because we have found that this is what works best for us.

hi lisa,
i said i had a low testosterone level. that is how i was made. you will need to talk to the Creator if you want to know why - LOL. our sex hormone levels are determined at a very early age, possibly before we are born. not all males have high testosterone levels.

my arachidonic acid levels are at a low-normal level. although these tests are before i added all my omega-6 to my diet, so it is probably higher now.

i did say that i could also buy that there was permanent damage done, which you are saying is your case, because of loss of beta cells.

diabetes, and such diseases have increased since the onset of procesed foods. i am not singling you out, but yes i most certainly think that much of diabetes is caused by the standard american diets of today.

i also believe in the body's ability to rebuild itself, probably moreso than most people. in any case, i think it is great that you are doing what you feel you must do, to better yourselves.

i do not believe my team of kids would develop diabetes in the first place - which is i guess my main point - that my diet is best for optimum health from the GET-GO. i believe that ounces of prevention are always better than pounds of cure.

Actually, that would be a bad assumption since type 1 diabetes strikes children and has nothing to do with diet whatsoever (it's thought to be viral or autoimmune in nature) Odds are good that at least one of your children would be afflicted with type 1 diabetes. Also, assuming that you had 100 children, half female and half male, statistically 2 or 3 of the girls would be likely to develop PCOS which is primarily a hormonal dysfunction and greatly increases the liklihood of developing diabetes irregardless of diet.
Secondly, it's highly unlikely that kids following a low carb regimen would develop diabetes either (other than type 1), less likely even than with even your diet since you aren't paying any particular attention to glycemic index, and if they did they would be far better able to control it with low carb than they would with high carb. Children would also not do well with brain development on the level of fats that you follow. It's highly not recommended to restrict fat consumption in children under the age of 5 just for that reason.
The high carb kids would also be more likely to have problems with high LDL, low HDL and high triglycerides than the low carb kids.



And on that we could agree, but it is not the onlycause. You can develop diabetes eating unprocessed carbs at the wrong levels as well.



Perhaps, but not getting enough of the right kinds of fats isn't helping matters any, nor is getting too much of your protein sources from soy.

I highly doubt it, so I'll agree with your original suggestion that we are not compatible, in terms of our thinking

Since I find it very frustrating that you refuse any scientific studies, repeatedly, despite having tons of them, then you say:



So, if science to you is the claims of one person with no verifiable records, except verbal claims, there's no common grounds for such dialogue, let alone common sense.

Even if I beleive your incredible undocumeted results, I'd be a fool to ignore the results of hundreds of subjects who were documented by clinical studies, with quantitative results.

Your only acceptable "science" is your own personal claims in such a debate and that "what I say is so". Since I'm a doubting person who demands scientific proof, I find that I'd go no where with such claims.

I know you call that science, but to me is mere superstition, or a form of self delusion resulting in your blind faith in vegetarianism.

Wa'il

Good day, I've followed this "discussion" off and on, and I have to side with Tamarian. However there is no winner here, since gymeejet really doesn't want to debate from an objective position, just like Tamarian says.

When it comes down to it, humans seem to do pretty well with about any diet, just as do most other omnivores. And what I mean by that is two examples: Clarence Bass, bodybuilder, low-fat, high carb, looks damn good at 60+. Dr. Ellis, also bodybuilder, but high-fat, low carb, looks damn good at 55+.

Does this prove one diet better than the other?? Not necessarily, but research Dr. Lutz from Austria, who has four decades of clinical use of low-carb diets for improving health, with weight control being secondary, and that will help lean you towards low-carb. In his case, we're talking thousands of patients, not hundreds... Real life stuff, not studies...

What really irks me are when Vegans seek to impose their chosen beliefs on others, making such ridiculous statements such as, "you shouldn't have a choice on whether or not to eat meat."

In my view, I agree that most vegetarians, vegans specifically, seek to impose their way of life to other's under the guise of well-meaning nutritional advice. Such as, "oh, eating meat is bad for you" etc...

It just strikes me that to the Vegans, human health even if adversely affected by complete abstinence from animal products, would still insist and force the rest of us from eating meat, if they could.

I believe we should all live as we please, and feel this courtesy should be equally reciprocated.

Ah, my favourite former anti low-carb doctor!

Wa'il

I totally agree. I personally have never made the claim that low-carb is the only way to go for every single person, despite finding no scientific evidence to the contrary.

A scintific study (yikes!) published a few years ago, showed plants have nerves that actually feel pain, and their reactions to such pain can be recorded and correlated to the times pain was inflicted.

It didn't make the rounds much, except in humerous spoof sites, one spoofing a press release by PETA in reaction to the published study

Wa'il