I can provide the name of the RD if anyone wishes to contact her. Just because you like pasteurization of milk, does not mean someone disagreeing with you is only using "crap" on the internet. We should all be aware of the faults of peer reviewed journals. Otherwise we would all still be using the Prudent Diet recommended by Keys.


http://majarimagazine.com/2009/03/m...-sterilization/
"Also, when milk is heated enzymes are inactivated, chemical reactions take place and there are changes in physical properties. Some important ones are a decrease in pH, precipitation of calcium phosphate, denaturation of whey proteins and interaction with casein, Maillard browning and modifications to the casein micelle."



"Besides destroying part of the vitamin C contained in raw milk and encouraging growth of harmful bacteria, pasteurization turns the sugar of milk, known as lactose, into beta-lactose — which is far more soluble and therefore more rapidly absorbed in the system, with the result that the child soon becomes hungry again.

Probably pasteurization's worst offence is that it makes insoluable the major part of the calcium contained in raw milk. This frequently leads to rickets, bad teeth, and nervous troubles, for sufficient calcium content is vital to children; and with the loss of phosphorus also associated with calcium, bone and breain formation suffer serious setbacks.

"Pasteurization also destroys 20 percent of the iodine present in raw milk, causes constipation and generally takes from the milk its most vital qualities."

http://www.realmilk.com/rawvpasteur.html
The above was published in Magazine Digest - June 1938
Armchair Science is a British Medical Journal

Wow. This is what I've been wondering about. Are there any references in the book as to how he knows that protein doesn't raise glucose but does insulin?

Lauren

Yes, it's been ten years, though. Back then low carb worked like a miracle; dropping ninety pounds happened effortlessly. I probably didn't read that part too carefully. Time to re-read. And to stop having small dietary lapses.

Thanks for the cautionary notes on raw dairy, Nancy and Mike. Since I've been off dairy I've had some remarkable changes, some so extreme that I hesitate to mention them for fear of sounding like a lunatic. It's more than just headaches gone. I don't think I'll test the waters for quite a long time.

I'm only up to page 42. I'll keep reading and report back.

I am confused as to why protein raises insulin levels. I post a lot on Low Carb Friends and mostly on the EFGT Barry Groves area. I know they are pretty big in limiting protein and I should have no more than about 75 grams a day but find I am more content on about 100-110 grams with an appropriate reduction in fat to still stay at about 1500 calories per day. Carbs are between 25-35 net per day. Any more and the cravings start. I am a healthy 47 year old female with no health problems and have only been LC since 1/09 but am much happier than my previous 1500 calorie diet that was about 60% carb, 20% fat 20% protein. Even 30/30/30 left something to be desired. I have my Groves book NHWL and will continue to read but I think I'm a little closer to Protein Power.

All these diet books oversimplify everything so people walk away thinking insulin is bad and is only there to deal with glucose.

There was a study posted here a few years back showing the difference in insulin release in healthy young people eating high carb meals versus low carb meals high in protein. The insulin levels were lower in the low carb group, but stayed up longer. I'll try to find that posting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin
Insulin helps the body get proteins to the cells. Here's a list of things insulin does:

I tried raw milk before I gave up dairy entirely. It didn't help me. Neither did raw goat milk. But calling raw milk a "fad" is like calling low-carb a fad. In my view, pasteurized milk is the fad, just as high-carb low-fat diets are the fad. Maybe 50-100 years is more than a fad, but we had lots more years of raw milk before that.

Hi Nancy,

I think you could be right there about insulin: it seems almost as if insulin is to LCers what cholesterol is to low-fatters - the deadly enemy! But, on the other hand, it is kind of in the nature of these diet books that they have to over-simplify things: the books would never sell if they were too technical. There have been so many posts on this forum along the lines of: "I wish there were an easier version of GCBC; it's too hard for my grandpa/mum/auntie/uncle etc". What's more, I think it's also simply human nature to simplify things: we'd be completely over-loaded with information if we didn't distil the information we received! We'd go bonkers with the burden of all the data!!!

As far as Barry Groves getting the insulin thing wrong, he may well have done: all I know is that it was this book that made me "see the light" and switch to LCing. For this I will be eternally (well, maybe not quite that long ) grateful. Plus, (I may have said this before ), when I stick to it, it works fine at weight loss and keeping my energy levels good all day long.

But I'm still confused about insulin: does protein raise blood sugar because the protein gets immediately converted to glucose, like carbs do? Or is there another mechanism at work? Or does protein in the system cause blood sugar to be released from its various stores because it is NOT a good source of fuel for immediate energy needs, and is only converted to glucose when there is no other source of energy available, i.e. as a last resort? Nancy, do you have any information on this?

If this were the case, that high protein intake, coupled with low fat intake, triggers the release of stored blood sugar because of the lack of immediately usable fuel, then the answer is: the Kwas/Groves/Lutz scenario! Take in a few carbs to cover immediate needs, a lot of fat to cover long-term energy needs and some protein to cover your metabolic needs.

From what you have quoted from Wikipedia, contrary to received LC wisdom, insulin is not a baddie as such: the problem is insulin spikes and insulin resistance, which are caused by too many carbs in the diet. And that number (the "too many") seems to vary a great deal from one person to the next: you can only find out by trial and error, it seems.

I'll be curious to read the post you wanted to find, too! Thanks for posting this Wiki stuff, as well.

amanda

Hi Cindy,

Why the reduction in fat? Why is this "appropriate"? Appropriate to what?Why are you worried about calories?

The beauty of low-carb/high-fat diets is that keeping your calories low and your fat intake low are not an issue!!!

If you read your NHWL closely, you'll see that you don't need to worry about either of these! I think you could easily up your carbs a tiny bit (40-60g), but, more importantly, up your fat intake!!! If you do that, your meals will be satisfying, keep hunger at bay for hours and you won't get cravings!!!

amanda

HEAR HEAR!!!

amanda

Does Dr. Kwasniewski assert that excess dietary protein is turned into fat?

Yes, he does.

If so, what is the metabolic process responsible for turning dietary protein into fat?

See: http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...90407130905.htm

The Optimal Diet is high in carbohydrate (compared to most other low-carb diets)...

It's not. Unless you consider 35-50 carbs 'high'. After induction, Atkins carbs are at least twice as high.

Why is excess carbohydrate not turned into fat and why is excess fat not turned into fat?

There's no excess carbohydrate or excess fat.

Is the premise of the Optimal Diet that it that no excess macronutrients are consumed?

Don't understand the question.

How did the doctor arrive at these numbers?

According to him, by treating his patients, observing them, and a lot of studies and tests.

Has the doctor considered that fat loss by folks on his diet is attributable to the (probable) reduction in dietary carbohydrate?

I'm confused. Is his diet filled with excess carbohydrates or a reduction of carbohydrates? In any event, people who were eating a high carb, low fat diet (that is, most of the country except us) certainly reduce carbs and increase fat when they go on any LC diet, and the OD is no exception. However, those of us who have (successfully) done the more 'usual' LC diets like Atkins, Paleo, Zero Carb etc. and who have turned to the OD because we ceased to lose weight well before goal, have found the ratios on OD call for slightly increased -- not reduced -- carbohydrate. Yet we go on to lose weight, sometimes after long stalls that have lasted years, not months. And more specifically, we lose fat, not water. How? By reducing our protein. The carbohydrates have nothing to do with it.


No one on this forum is an expert, but you can find plenty of substance on the K threads themselves. Just curious: Your thread title is "Paleo Critique of the Optimal Diet." You've asked some interesting questions, but where's the critique?

Lisa

That 'someone' is me. I don't believe I've ever claimed to do research into the protein metabolic defect itself, but research on what the diet is all about. I expect that anyone interested in the OD will either do their own scientific research into BPAA problems for insulin resistant people who eat a high fat diet (by definition, all LC diets compared with 'normal' low calorie diets) and make their own decision whether or not to try the diet. Or, they will simply try it and see if it works.

So far, based on the 'anecdotal claims' of the K thread participants, it appears that almost everyone who has tried it is in fact losing weight. Some of them, like me, after being stalled for years on traditional LC like Atkins.

Lisa

If I hadn't experienced it personally, I would have agreed with you. If I hadn't subsequently read the new study that shows this to be fact, and how it works, I would have agreed with you. If I hadn't started the diet myself six weeks ago and lost over 4 pounds in three weeks (lost nothing at first, as my metabolism began to adjust) after losing ZERO pounds in two years despite strict LC, I would have agreed with you. If others who have now begun the diet hadn't also begun to lose weight again after stalling with traditional LC, I would have agreed with you. Now -- not so much.


So logic would dictate. Just as logic dictates that losing weight is 'simple'. Just take in fewer calories than you burn. And we all know where that logic has got us as a nation: fat and diabetic. If you eat low fat, and lower your protein, you must eat more carb. Disaster. If you eat LC, and lower your protein, you must eat more fat. Success! Btw, the BPAA metabolic defect only manifests in high fat diets, which is why I could go back to eating low calorie and eat all the protein I wanted with no problem. No problem, that is - except I'd then have to eat high carb. Thanks, but no thanks.


For people who aren't insulin resistant, aren't eating an LC diet and who don't have a BPAA problem? Sure. Lots of folks who aren't insulin resistant can eat a ton of carbs to no ill effect either. I'm just not one of them. And I can now tell you that not only am I losing weight on the OD, but I have never felt better, or more energetic in my life. I love eating this way, and apparently my body does too. I'm losing stored body fat and gaining lean muscle mass by the day. On 57g of protein. Apparently, that's all I really need.


New studies show that the 'someone' was wrong. Happens all the time when science marches on. We can't know what we don't know at the time.

Lisa

Yes. If it weren't possible to uncouple the theory (ratios) to the practice (foods) I wouldn't have lost a pound, because I don't eat the foods.

And the ratios are easy to figure out. You take your ideal weight (from a standard chart), not your goal weight. Convert to kilos. That's how much protein grams a day you can eat. Times that number by 2.5 -- that's how many fat grams you can eat. Take the first number again (your ideal kilo weight/allowable protein grams) and times by .8 -- that's how many carbs you can eat.

1: 2.5: .08 Easy.

You stay with those ratios until you reach a 'stabilized normal weight range.' Then, for maintenance, your ratios become .8: 3.5: .8 -- in other words the protein is slightly reduced (which makes sense since you weigh so much less), the fat is slightly increased, and the carbs remain the same.

Lisa