Actually, exercise is good for you, and I'm not sure why science is bad? But I thought you said you had ton of scientific studies to prove your point. Just read your previous post, just before the last one.

However, I won't pressure you further, as I said, I realise this is more of a superstition/religion to you, and science is not in the picture as far as you're concerned.

I don't agree with you, but I won't disrespect your beliefs, you are entitled to that.

Wa'il

tamarian,
i gave you 2 studies that would probably be against your beliefs, as a low-carber. i could find you tons - you are still in the minority. but i have already told you guys that i am not into studies, and i have no desire to argue one man's studies versus another's.

and i do not think that science is bad. i have a major in computer science, and a very scientific mind. but i have enough wisdom to know that most studies belong in the circular file. perhaps you may find this out sometime. perhaps you do not fully understand the "scientific method". it involves formulating a theory, gathering empirical facts or data, and then re-formulating the theory to match the given results. everything i say has been put to practice in exactly this way. so please refrain from the ludicrous comments about me not being scientific, and using superstitions. it only serves to make you look biased.

and i have tested this out on other people, like i have already mentioned, very specifically to eliminate the possibility that for some reason my body is different. i have already stated that i have found that my body seems to act the same as everyone else's. so this gives me greater confidence that what i observe in myself is also true for a great number of people. and i do not need to wonder whether my data is accurate, or who is paying to have my study done.

and i do not have much respect for doctors with regards to nutrition and health. just as with jack lalaane, they are very often wrong. the doctors thought that jack was gonna have a heart attack and worse, by doing all that useless exercise.

you guys are not getting enough carbs for optimum health.

it is my belief that many of you are willing to rationalize anything away, if it means loss of weight.

tamarian,
you have been the only poster who has been openly attacking of me. i now notice that you are also the forum founder. this leads me to believe that you do not want anyone here to argue against the low carb diets that you believe in. so i will leave - i do not believe in staying where i am not wanted.

i gave you guys some advice. perhaps it may have some good results in the future with one of you. in any case, good bye, and i wish all of you the very healthiest.

Yes. How convenient that all dairy products contain lactose. It also stresses that Vitamin D is needed for calcium absorption. Vitamin D is a fat soluble vitamin and nowhere in the article does it say that you need only lactose and vitamin D.



Wait...this is about double what you started out recommending at the beginning of the thread. What you started out recommending would be about 13% fat on an 1,800 calorie diet and most would need more calories than that to maintain making the fat percentage even lower, especially if they were doing the type of strenuous exercise that you are prescribing. That's a very low fat diet by any standards.
You might also want to watch that Safflower oil since it's high in Omega 6 and most people already get too much in their diets from other sources. The best ratio of Omega 3:6 is 4:1. Also...where are you getting your Omega 9 fats from and your CLA?



Reversal of heart disease, normalization of blood sugars in diabetics, many of them without medications and helping hundreds of thousands of people achieve weight loss without starvation and loss of muscle mass and keep it off. In their experience, high levels of carbs combined with low levels of fats lead to high LDL and triglycerides along with low HDL, exactly the opposite of what is desired.




How do you know since you've never tried it? You also ignored the other study that I posted regarding runners and incresing their endurance time with a higher percentage of their calories (and therefore decreasing the amount of calories from carbs). Running IS a high intensity exercise.


You're also totally missing the point of GI. When it comes to GI, if two foods (let's use the potato and Twinkie example) have identical GI, your body will respond exactly the same to each of them and doesn't care what the source of the sugar is. As far as glycemic index is concerned, your body doesn't care if the sugar comes from a potato or a Twinkie, it will respond with a rise in blood sugar along with an equal response of insulin production to each of them. Now, we know that as far as nutrients (and by this I mean vitamins, minerals and fiber), the potato is marginally better, but as far as how your body will respond to the sugars in them, there is no difference.

LOL, aren't you arguing already? Did I stop you? I'm just trying to find out if you have any grounds to your claims.

Sorry if debate offends you, but that's to be expected when when you make such outlandish claims.

Wa'il

You provided two links to opinion pieces, with no scientific studies.

There's a difference. And I won't hold my breath to see any of those tons you say you've read, if they're just article and personal advice..

I suspect your information is quite misguided, if you think vegetarians are the majority, but so is the rest of your plan.

Wa'il

tamarian,
you have shown an attitude towards me with every one of your posts. you continually misqote me. by being in the minority, i meant by being a low-carber. i am sure that was obvious to everyone else reading. by continually attempting to make me look superstitious, when i am not, etc. etc. lisa, on the other hand, never does that. she counters my points with points of her own. as the forum founder, you have shown poor taste.

lisa,
i have truly enjoyed your posts. you have never resorted to going after me personally, but instead gave good arguments for your beliefs. so let me take the time to answer your questions.

i try to get people to eat better. i used 2 tablespoons of safflower and some flax meal as starting points. i would be thrilled to death if people did this much. it would at least give them enough essential fats, according to anything i have read. it was not meant to define exact dosages, or say what i do personally.

we do differ on the amount of fat needed. other than essential fats, i do not believe that fat is needed in the diets. you will also never hear me speak about percentages of the 3 main food groups. what you will hear me say is get enough protein, and enough essential fats. then feed your body with natural carbs. not only will the percentages vary with different people, but more importantly, it will vary on a day to day basis, for one person. the level of proteins and essentials does not vary nearly so much with our activity levels, as does our carbohydrate needs.

so on a personal note, this is what i do. i make sure i meet my protein and essential needs each day. whatever else i eat during the day, to keep me satiated, is with good natural foods, which for the most part, is highly carb oriented.

while you tend to concentrate on the percentage of fat, i am concentrating on grams of essential fat. this i know is needed, by first-hand empirical knowledge.

i do not believe there have been any tests done with my suggestions. i do not disagree with you in regards to the low-fat, high carb diets that the masses have been on. but the problem has not been a lack of fat, but rather a lack of ESSENTIAL FATS. and of course, a lack of protein, in many of these cases.

from what i have read, a starting point for people in most climates is 2 omega6 to 1 omega3. the colder the climate, it has been found, even with fish and plants, that they contain a higher omega3 concentration, than does their warmer counterparts.

i am not convinced that people's intake of omega6 is all that beneficial to them, since a lot of it comes from processed foods. which can mean that what might have started out as a healthy omega6 source, because of heat or other processing, has been destroyed. so while the body may be able to use these fats for energy sources, i try to make sure that they use the safflower and flax, without processing, so i know that they are at least getting a good supply of good essential fat.

omega9 is not needed in the diet. the body can make it. i am not sure that conjugated la is needed. according to what i have read, any omega6 we actually need is derived from linoleic acid. my blood tests test for linoleic 18:2, gamma linolenic 18:3, eicosadienoic 20:2, dihomogamma linolenic 20:3, arachidonic 20:4, docosadienoic 22:2, docosatetraenoic 22:4 (omega6 family). it tests for alpha linolenic 18:3, eicosapentaenoic 20:5, docosapentaenoic 22:5, and docosahexaenoic 22:6 (omega3 family). it also tests for omega 9 and a bunch of saturated as well as odd chain fats. these results do show that my body makes omega9.

i was not missing your point about GI. what i am saying is that make yourself a salad with 15 different vegetables, and your GI will not be anywhere nearly so high as it is when eating twinkies and oreos. in otherwards, your GI will not be a problem when you are eating a host of natural foods.

i do know what it feels like when i have not eaten enough carbs, so i do not intend to make that an actual way of eating. i would first have to kiss all my cardio good-bye, because my body will just laugh at me, if i try to do vigorous cardio without enough carbs.

i will just caution you once again concerning studies. it is all 3rd hand information to us. i know that much of it is pre-ordained. please just use caution if you are allowing studies to dictate your actions, especially when it is important, such as your health and well-being.

i am not familiar with either the bicycling or running study. i am sure we could find "studies" supporting the opposite, with regards to runners and bicyclists. the dairy article that i showed you was just an example. believe me, they have all kinds of scientific studies showing how important milk products are - because they have something they want to sell you.

You miss the point completely. You're acting like you're the majority, by recommending vegetable protein and 2 spoons of vegetable oil as "optimal health", and you think we're the minority here? Seriously?

I'm afraid I didn't misquote you, just zeroed in on your inconsistency. Too bad you keep avoiding showing your cllaims of tons of proof.




I haven't made you into anything, you're doing that on your own. Make health claims, and avoid having to support them, except through repetition, and self aggrandising authority.

If it make it easier for you that I exit the debate because I'm a forum founder, I'll gladly do that. But this excuse isn't just a poor taste on your part, it's a very cheap shot.

Wa'il

tamarian, it would be best for us not to communicate any more. never did i say i was in the majority. i said that low-carbers are in the minority, when compared to non-low-carbers. god knows, i would hate to be in the current majority - the standard american diet is atrocious. i do find it interesting that you always misunderstand me, while lisa never misunderstands me. you continually make mis-interpretations. as i do not want to continue to correct your interpretations of my statements, i have decided just not to respond to any of your posts. if you decide to delete me, that is your option.

I just stumbled on this thread. It seems that Gymmejet has found a nutrition and exercise plan that works really well for him. If I read correctly he has a Jack LaLane type physique and stamina level. I'm impressed someone can do that on a vegetarian diet.

I'm also 48 and female. I tried for many years to follow a carb-intensive, low meat, low fat diet. My husband, who is very athletic, stayed thin on this diet and seems to be in good health (a bit thin, I think, at 6'2" and 170 pounds). I gained weight steadily over the years. When I cut back portions, I was hungry and could not stay on the plan. With Atkins, however, I have lost 26 pounds in three months. This has been wonderful for me. I am not hungry. I eat vegetables every day, but very little fruit or grain.

But I would not insist that my husband, or anyone else, follow my diet plan. We each have to find what works.

I guess I am kind of like you. Evangilist (non-religious) for what I believe

I have had success with the Atkins approach with both my diabetes and my weight. I am looking forward to weigh in Friday, because I am pretty sure I am going to be down a good deal more (I go to the doctor's office every Friday to use their scale).

Since I have had success here, also with my mountain bike, running 9 miles 3 days a week, I start to think that my way is the only proper way for people "en masse" as you and Lisa put it.

The reality though, is that everyone is different. You would not do well on my eating plan, nor would I do well on yours (I have tried yours). We are kind of like those silly dietitians that basically say "my way is the only way", and "anything other than my way is ______" (unhealthy, dangerous, etc, etc, etc).

I am a firm believer in doing what works, and not doing what doesn't work. Carby diets are dangerous for some people (diabetics). Other people on unbothered by them (my wife). I gain weight on high carb low-fat, with a dietitian help mind you, and lose weight with optimum health on low-carb any percentage of fat I like diet.

Interesting question though: if you eat an apple for a snack, how long before you are hungry again (say for next meal or snack)?

Me: 15 minutes
Wife: 3 hours

I think that has something to do with it.

Good luck, don't expect to change any minds around here though,

wsgts

No, I will not delete you, and never thought to do so. You are very polite and civil, and have not violated our forum rules. You're not a low-carber, and this war zone area is designated for such discussion, so you're very welcome here.

It's just my nature to demand proof, and I can be very pushy looking for it. But I'll gladly withdraw from the discussion

Wa'il

Yes, we do and I've already laid out my reasons why I disagree so I won't repeat them. Besides being a necessary component of diet, it just plain makes foods taste good and provides satiety. With the amount of carbs in your diet, you're wise to keep your fats to a minimum; high carb/high fat is a deadly mix. However...for those of us who find it necessary to restrict carbs (and there are many of us here) because of a whole list of medical conditions such as PCOS, hypothyroid, hypoglycemia, diabetes and insulin resistance (for all of which restricting carbs is recommended treatment), calories need to come from somewhere and you can only eat so much protein. If you did any amount of reading here on the forum, you'd find that the majority of us here are quite aware of essential fatty acid requirements and strive to achieve them. You'll see quite a few posts about fish oil supplements and flax, either ground or as oil as well as the use of various other oils. Considering the amount of protein from animal sources that most of us eat, it's more important to focus on getting enough Omega 3 than omega 6 as we're already getting plenty. As for higher amounts of fat, they do not have a negative impact on cardiovascular health when eaten in combination with a low carb, low GI diet. In fact, the recent studies have shown that cardiovascular profiles actually improve under these conditions.



Actually, I don't concentrate on the percentage of fat at all other than to make sure that I get enough of what I need. I was merely pointing out to you that what you are recommending would be considered a very low fat diet by any standard and most of us have been there/done that.




You know what it feels like for a body that is used to getting its main energy source from glucose to run short of it. It takes 3-5 days for your body to deplete its glycogen stores and switch from being a primarily glucose burning system to a ketone burning one and yes, you will likely not feel up to par while this happens. However...this is the energy source that our bodies were adapted to prior to organized agriculture; humans existed and even thrived primarily on animal protein and fats. Before the advent of agriculture, the only carbs that you got were that which you could find and gather and in temperate climates, they were not available for a good part of the year. In the case of strenuous exercise, it may take up to 2 weeks for your body to fully adapt to using ketones as an energy source, but when it does most find that their performance is not diminished (see the post from wsgts above).




I couldn't disagree more. Most Americans at least are not lacking in protein OR fat, although they probably get way too much Omega 6 and not enough Omega 3. That in an of itself is not enough to explain the current obesity, diabetes and heart disease epidemics currently occurring. The problem in many (not all) cases is that people are eating way too many carbs and the wrong types when they do in trying to follow the food pyramid (heavy on the grains, light on the protein and fats).



Well...concerning a low carb lifestyle and its effects on health, it's all first hand information to those of us here because we are applying it directly to ourselves and finding that not only does it work, it works best of anything else we have tried (and a lot of us have tried it all). The studies being done confirm that we are not on the wrong track because those results are being duplicated in the studies being done. One of the tests of science is whether or not the results can be duplicated by a number of scientists using the same methods.




Well, you did start out this thread by giving specific amounts of proteins and essential fats stating that this is what everyone needed for "optimal health". Most low carbers are getting enough protein and essential fats, but choose not to fill the bulk of their diet with carbs because they have found that doing so does not promote optimal health for them. Instead we choose to keep our carbs limited and those that we do include in our daily diets are the highest in vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals possible. Fortunately for us, those that tend to be the highest in all those categories are also the lowest in carbs and glycemic index, so we can easily meet our requirements of these things and still keep our carbs within our individual tolerance levels.

I get the impression from your posts, at least intially, that you have the mistaken notion that most of us here are merely just trying out the latest fad diet and for a minority of members, that may be true. But for the majority of us, we are very serious about our health and have done our research as well and feel that this is the best possible way of eating for OUR optimal health. Many of us have tried everything else out there only to find our weight climbing and our health deteriorating. This is not a fad to us, but a way of life that has brought great improvement to our health and wellbeing.

Your way works for you? Great! Congratulations...you have a healthy body that seems to be able to tolerate a high level of carbs. Your doctor says he's never seen a stronger heart (but I bet he didn't tell you that having a strong heart won't protect you from a myocardial infarction...cardiac muscle strength has nothing to do with that). Don't, however, make the mistake of thinking that what works great for you will work great for the rest of us. I'm here to tell you that it won't because when it comes to what we eat, one size does not fit all or even most. Why? Because, as you pointed out, all of us have different needs and dietary requirements, not so much in what we eat, but in the propotions of those foods. Some people, actually a great many people, can't tolerate high amounts of carbs or high glycemic carbs for varying reasons that I mentioned earlier and their health, weight and bloodwork reflects that clearly. Insisting that they eat like you or risk not achieving "optimal health" is doing them a great disservice and comes across as arrogant and uninformed, especially when their experience has showed them otherwise. Similarly, you won't find me saying that you should not eat the way that you do; obviously this works for you. It just doesn't work for me or for the majority of us here.

So, again, what we have is your opinion versus ours. We have quite a bit of sound research behind us as well as experience on both sides of the fence, you have mostly opinion, not a lot of knowledge about what low carb is really about and no practical experience with it at all.
You expected when you first posted that your opinion wouldn't be a popular one and you're right, but it's not a knee-jerk, uninformed response that you're getting. It's a well thought out response based on study and experience.
When it comes down to it, we're really looking at two sides of the same coin and our goals are the same. We're just chosing to get to those goals by different means.

hi quest,
i definitely do not have a jack lalaane physique - LOL. i have a low testosterone level, and therefore could never put on the same amount of muscle.