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


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16   ^
Old Fri, Jan-02-09, 14:36
BoBoGuy's Avatar
BoBoGuy BoBoGuy is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,178
 
Plan: Low Carb - High Nutrition
Stats: 213/175/175 Male 72 Inches
BF: Belly Fat? Yes!
Progress: 100%
Location: California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
Actually it's not impossible to reconcile once one includes the concept of "adequate nutrition" to the mix....something those who adhere to CRON practice.....'calorie restricted optimal nutrition' is not an easy practice - it involves weighing and measuring everything to calculate out and target meeting specific nutrient goals each day, and that includes adequate protein to insure adequate amino acids are consumed daily. Since the calorie restriction undoubtedly lowers the overall intake of calories from fat, since those eating CRON eat a lot of vegetables and such to meet vitamins and mineral targets, it's theoretically possible to reach an equilibrium where metabolism slows to lower metabolic rate, sparing muscle and maintaining fat reserves (note - most doing CRON are not overweight, they lose accumulated fat stores). It's the nutrient aspect of calorie restriction that is often overlooked and/or not talked about - and it is critically important for anyone considering calorie restriction as a dietary option to understand and follow! It isn't simply reducing calories - it's reducing calories while optimizing intake of essential nutrients to meet and exceed requirements.


Regina, thank you so much for posting the above. It’s refreshing to know that at least one person on this forum comprehends the concept of CRON, and realizes that for a select few, it may be the optimal dietary approach.

As you know, it may be decades before we can be certain that calorie-restriction slows the rate of aging or extends maximum lifespan. But regardless of whether or not caloric restriction increases the lifespan, it clearly markedly improves current health. The point is that CRON hugely improves cardiovascular and glucose management parameters. Those health benefits alone should pay its freight.

Thanks again.

Bo
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17   ^
Old Fri, Jan-02-09, 14:54
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBoGuy
Regina, thank you so much for posting the above. It’s refreshing to know that at least one person on this forum comprehends the concept of CRON, and realizes that for a select few, it may be the optimal dietary approach.

As you know, it may be decades before we can be certain that calorie-restriction slows the rate of aging or extends maximum lifespan. But regardless of whether or not caloric restriction increases the lifespan, it clearly markedly improves current health. The point is that CRON hugely improves cardiovascular and glucose management parameters. Those health benefits alone should pay its freight.

Thanks again.

Bo


You're welcome Bo!

I personally don't think calorie-restriction is going to bear fruit long-term regarding enhanced longevity in humans....I think the other side of the CRON coin is the one that is critical - the optimal nutrition....workign to meet and/or exceed nutrient requirements....doing that, I suspect, with calories within normal range for weight and requirements, will have a similar benefit in the long-term. I think that mainly because I think that much of our current issues with obesity are due to malnutrition more than excess calories.....consumption of excess calories is basically, in my view, a symptom of malnutrition - the body prompting one to eat in an effort to meet requirements, especially protein requirements.
Reply With Quote
  #18   ^
Old Fri, Jan-02-09, 15:02
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
Excess glucose is detrimental to cellular function - but glucose is hardly "poison" when you consider if we don't eat foods that convert to glucose, we make it ourselves to provide the glucose our cells require and need!


It doesn't refute that glucose is poisonous to humans. It only points out that the dose makes the poison and that the effects scale with dose and time. This is already established in toxicology. Blood glucose is maintained within a tight margin by homeostatic systems. The only way blood glucose changes is if we eat it. In other words, we control its toxicity to the minimum we can handle. Any less than this and some systems don't function properly. Any more than this and all systems stop working properly including those that require glucose to function.

Granted, it's the excess glucose that makes it toxic. But this simply shifts the focus from blood glucose to ingested carbohydrate. Any ingested carbohydrate causes blood glucose to rise. If any excess glucose is toxic, then any amount of ingested carbohydrate is toxic.
Reply With Quote
  #19   ^
Old Fri, Jan-02-09, 15:25
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac

Granted, it's the excess glucose that makes it toxic. But this simply shifts the focus from blood glucose to ingested carbohydrate. Any ingested carbohydrate causes blood glucose to rise. If any excess glucose is toxic, then any amount of ingested carbohydrate is toxic.


Almost anything in excess can be poisonous....it's a strawman to say because excess glucose acts as a poison that all glucose is poison. One only need to look at the fundamental requirement of cells for glucose to realize that glucose, per se, is not the problem.....it's the excess glucose that can be problematic. Without any dietary carbohydrate we simply make the glucose we need.....when carbohydrate is ingested, we halt gluconeogenesis and maintain glucose levels via homeostasis - that doesn't mean that any carbohydrate is poison - it is, again, excessive amounts that are!

Good grief, even animal products have carbohydrate - from stored glycogen in the muscle to measurable carbohydrate in brain, kidney, liver, bone marrow, etc.....so no matter how you want to slice and dice it, you cannot make the arguement that no carbohydrate is ever supposed to be in the human diet!
Reply With Quote
  #20   ^
Old Fri, Jan-02-09, 16:07
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
Martin, you're setting up so many different logical fallacies, I'm not even sure where to start in reply!

First you bring in fat stores in pregnancy, but point to the wrong reason fat is laid down in pregnancy -- it isn't for adequate fat to go to the fetus/baby, but to insure two things....first is energy required during labor (there was a huge paper a few years ago about the benefits of ketosis for delivery and the role of body fat stores to acheive ketosis during labor) and second isn't for supply of fat to the baby, but for lactation - so the woman has adequate stores of energy to produce milk to feed her infant.

Which interestingly Martin, if carbohydrate was not part of the human diet, why then is breastmilk rich with fat and carbohydrate? It's actually "low" in protein (by gram weight - it's actually the right amount by weight of the infant and its requirements for amino acids). If it were that we only need protein and fat, the first perfect food - breastmilk - would contain no carbohydrate!

You mix apples and oranges, making the implication that by my statement that carbohydrate is indeed part of the human diet that it then must mean a high carbohydrate diet is normal. I have never said that, nor do my words imply such....re-read what I wrote, and it's clear I said that carbohydrate has a place in our diet and I believe it is to serve an evolutionary advantage to maintain us, by allowing us to accumulate adequate fat stores, to survive and reproduce.

DO NOT FORGET a woman is infertile without adequate body fat stores - low body fat renders the female reproductive system null-and-void....it won't work without the right level of body fat......without a means to lay body fat, how exactly do women - if they consume a mostly carbohydrate-free diet - lay down body fat if you....as you suggest....cannot without carbohydrate?

Ah - but we do lay down fat and can in the absence of carbohydrate because it is NOT the carbohydrate driving fat storage, it's the INSULIN....right? So what else potentially allows us to lay down fat in the absence of carbs? Anyone? Anyone? Ferris?


I wasn't clear enough. Sorry.

I meant that the baby grows fat immediately after birth to insure it a supply of fat from its own fat stores. Indeed, the mother's milk contains an agent that would make it so: Lactose.


Now it's your post that contains logical fallacies.

If the woman's fat stores is intended to induce ketosis during pregnancy, why do women mostly have gestational diabetes? Ketosis and diabetes are mutually exclusive because one is induced by the lack of carbohydrate while the other is induced by the presence of carbohydrate. Unless you meant ketoacidosis but I think you meant what you wrote. If we claim that carbohydrate is a natural part of the human diet, we have to accept the gestational diabetes is also part of the normal pregnancy and we have to exclude ketosis.

If breast milk contains lactose, it's to insure the baby grows fat which in turn is to insure he has an adequate supply of fat during a critical growth period where fat is absolutely essential. On the other hand, we grow lactose intolerant which tells us that breast milk is not the normal adult human food. Maybe this is an evolutionary advantage that would push us to eat an actually adequate food like fat meat during the period succeeding weaning. You mention yourself that breast milk contains insufficient protein and it would continue to contain increasingly insufficient protein for a growing child. These are two unambiguous arguments against carbohydrates and dairy as part of a normal human diet.

I don't need to attribute you implications for me to extend the logic behind carbohydrate being a food. It's merely the next logical step.It's the next logical step because carbohydrate causes us to eat more carbohydrate therefore a high carb diet is a normal human diet if we see carbohydrate as food. That's the logical chain. You don't have to write anything else for this chain to develop if all you write is the very first part. It will develop whether you like it or not.

Women already have the means to lay down more bodyfat than men without the ingestion of carbohydrate. It's written in their genes. That carbohydrates cause excess fat accumulation is merely coincidental. It is not what causes women to store fat differently from men. Ingesting carbohydrates merely emphasizes those genetic differences by amplifying those areas where fat accumulates more and less. However, there is a point where the gender differences disappear but I guess we're not talking about this but still I think there's something to be said about this.

You could argue the carbohydrate hypothesis here but before you refute my advice in other threads, you'd have to show that I claim that both women and men accumulate fat with equal efficiency with equal amounts of carbohydrate. I never claimed this. On the contrary, I adopt the Taubes view of gender differences in fat accumulation.

Indeed, if women accumulate fat more readily than men and should do so even without ingesting carbohydrate and this should be sufficient for normal pregnancy, wouldn't women need to reduce their carb intake even lower than men to achieve the same results? The hypothesis that carbohydrate is a normal part of the human diet is refuted again.

It's a logical fallacy to claim that carbohydrate is a normal part of the human diet if it simulates the normal surplus fat accumulation that occurs without ingesting carbohydrate.
Reply With Quote
  #21   ^
Old Fri, Jan-02-09, 16:24
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
Almost anything in excess can be poisonous....it's a strawman to say because excess glucose acts as a poison that all glucose is poison. One only need to look at the fundamental requirement of cells for glucose to realize that glucose, per se, is not the problem.....it's the excess glucose that can be problematic. Without any dietary carbohydrate we simply make the glucose we need.....when carbohydrate is ingested, we halt gluconeogenesis and maintain glucose levels via homeostasis - that doesn't mean that any carbohydrate is poison - it is, again, excessive amounts that are!

Good grief, even animal products have carbohydrate - from stored glycogen in the muscle to measurable carbohydrate in brain, kidney, liver, bone marrow, etc.....so no matter how you want to slice and dice it, you cannot make the arguement that no carbohydrate is ever supposed to be in the human diet!


Ingesting carbohydrate can only cause excess blood glucose. It can't cause normal blood glucose. That we have a method (insulin) to lower blood glucose back to normal doesn't change the fact that blood glucose must rise above normal before this happens. And during this period when blood glucose is higher than normal is precisely when it is toxic to all tissues including those that require glucose to function. Therefore ingesting carbohydrate is always toxic.

The most amount of carbohydrate in animal flesh is about 8% by weight and that's in liver meat. In muscle meat, it's about 1-2% or 10-20 grams per kilo. It's even lower in fat tissue. Considering that an all meat diet consists of about 50% fat and 50% lean (I meant protein because lean is only about 20% protein by weight) by weight and that one human can eat about one kilo per day of fat meat then we can say that the total amount of carbohydrate ingested this way (about 5 to 10 grams of glycogen daily) could hardly affect blood glucose adversely. Nevertheless, I admit that any carbohydrate even that coming from meat affects blood glucose so yes it is potentially harmful.

That meat contains trace amounts of carbohydrate does not constitute a logical argument for more carbohydrate or even for carbohydrate from plant sources to be a normal part of the human diet. It simply says that we can't not eat any. If anything, it tells us that carbohydrate is toxic in any quantity above what we find in animal flesh. Since plant sources are much higher i.e. excessive in carbohydrate than animal flesh, it's only logical to conclude that all plants are poisonous to humans.
Reply With Quote
  #22   ^
Old Fri, Jan-02-09, 16:24
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
I wasn't clear enough. Sorry.

I meant that the baby grows fat immediately after birth to insure it a supply of fat from its own fat stores. Indeed, the mother's milk contains an agent that would make it so: Lactose.


Now it's your post that contains logical fallacies.

If the woman's fat stores is intended to induce ketosis during pregnancy, why do women mostly have gestational diabetes? Ketosis and diabetes are mutually exclusive because one is induced by the lack of carbohydrate while the other is induced by the presence of carbohydrate. Unless you meant ketoacidosis but I think you meant what you wrote. If we claim that carbohydrate is a natural part of the human diet, we have to accept the gestational diabetes is also part of the normal pregnancy and we have to exclude ketosis.

If breast milk contains lactose, it's to insure the baby grows fat which in turn is to insure he has an adequate supply of fat during a critical growth period where fat is absolutely essential. On the other hand, we grow lactose intolerant which tells us that breast milk is not the normal adult human food. Maybe this is an evolutionary advantage that would push us to eat an actually adequate food like fat meat during the period succeeding weaning. You mention yourself that breast milk contains insufficient protein and it would continue to contain increasingly insufficient protein for a growing child. These are two unambiguous arguments against carbohydrates and dairy as part of a normal human diet.

I don't need to attribute you implications for me to extend the logic behind carbohydrate being a food. It's merely the next logical step.It's the next logical step because carbohydrate causes us to eat more carbohydrate therefore a high carb diet is a normal human diet if we see carbohydrate as food. That's the logical chain. You don't have to write anything else for this chain to develop if all you write is the very first part. It will develop whether you like it or not.

Women already have the means to lay down more bodyfat than men without the ingestion of carbohydrate. It's written in their genes. That carbohydrates cause excess fat accumulation is merely coincidental. It is not what causes women to store fat differently from men. Ingesting carbohydrates merely emphasizes those genetic differences by amplifying those areas where fat accumulates more and less. However, there is a point where the gender differences disappear but I guess we're not talking about this but still I think there's something to be said about this.

You could argue the carbohydrate hypothesis here but before you refute my advice in other threads, you'd have to show that I claim that both women and men accumulate fat with equal efficiency with equal amounts of carbohydrate. I never claimed this. On the contrary, I adopt the Taubes view of gender differences in fat accumulation.

Indeed, if women accumulate fat more readily than men and should do so even without ingesting carbohydrate and this should be sufficient for normal pregnancy, wouldn't women need to reduce their carb intake even lower than men to achieve the same results? The hypothesis that carbohydrate is a normal part of the human diet is refuted again.

It's a logical fallacy to claim that carbohydrate is a normal part of the human diet if it simulates the normal surplus fat accumulation that occurs without ingesting carbohydrate.


Martin - I definitely meant what I wrote when I said it's thought that ketosis is part-and-parcel to delivery....because we now see the effect of excess carbohydrate leading to increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes does not mean ketosis is not a built-in mechanism to enable a smoother delivery -- take away the carbohydrate excess and now the ketosis comes into play as it should. It was in a paper published in the green journal (ACOG) a few years ago - and was quite brilliant in that it wasn't written by someone already enamored with low-carb or even someone suggesting low-carb diets....just someone with a keen interest in understanding the physiological mechanisms of delivery and whether it's a good idea to tinker with what works by adding sports drinks (high carb) to the delivery options for women who are in long labor -- he suggested it's a bad idea since doing so would shut off ketosis, which would be critically important later in the labor process. If I find the link, I'll post it - it was a good paper.

Now....if women can accumulate fat more readily than men, as you say, how exactly can they do that in the absence of carbohydrate? How can they get fat enough to reproduce without carbohydrate? You need to present a biologically plausible mechanism at this point to show how such happens since you're the one saying we don't ever need carbohydrate and carbohydrate is not part of the human diet. (which I've already refuted simply by the existence of carbohydrate in animal foods - of which I made no mention of dairy)

Which bring me to your contention that we grow lactose intolerant - all humans do not - some do, but certain populations do not because they've adapted to continue making lactase to digest lactose (along with the lactase being present in milk that is not processed)......I also did not say that breastmilk was deficient in protein -- in fact I stated it was exactly what is needed by weight for an infant, but if we look at it by percentage of calories, we're told and led to believe it's low-protein, when in fact it is protein adequate. The protein content of breastmilk increases with time - and can and often does support normal growth in chidlren as old as three with no other complimentary foods (although almost all "primative" societies will add in complimentary foods around a year or so).....to breastfeed that long, however, can tax a woman's protein stores if no other foods are included in the child's diet after about 2.

Which makes me wonder Martin - how exactly does a woman potentially lay fat down in pregnancy if she doesn't consume any carbohydrate? You're fond of saying one can't lay down fat without carbohydrate.....so without carbohydrate, how do you propose that happens?
Reply With Quote
  #23   ^
Old Fri, Jan-02-09, 16:49
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
[..]
Which makes me wonder Martin - how exactly does a woman potentially lay fat down in pregnancy if she doesn't consume any carbohydrate? You're fond of saying one can't lay down fat without carbohydrate.....so without carbohydrate, how do you propose that happens?


Well that depends. Do you claim that women should accumulate excess fat over what they would normally accumulate without ingesting carbohydrate except that found in animal flesh? If that's what you claim, then you'll have to refute your own claim that ingesting carbohydrate stops ketosis. Ketosis which you also claim is a normal process of pregnancy. I don't see how you can reconcile both sides.

I don't know everything that happens during pregnancy but I'm sure there's a whole lot going on that takes care to lay down the necessary fat without ingestion of carbohydrate above that found in animal flesh. The alternative is that women are supposed to be fed a special diet containing more carbohydrate. This doesn't fit current knowledge of the effects of an all meat diet on pregnancy. The Inuit do just fine of making and feeding babies on their exclusive diet of animal flesh.

Gary Taubes makes an argument that men and women lay down fat differently. It doesn't refute that carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat accumulation. It simply points out that it does so differently for women than it does for men. I'm just repeating myself at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #24   ^
Old Fri, Jan-02-09, 16:53
J-lo carb J-lo carb is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 268
 
Plan: my plan
Stats: 162.5/148/145 Female 5' 8"
BF:
Progress: 83%
Default

neoglucogenesis
Reply With Quote
  #25   ^
Old Fri, Jan-02-09, 16:57
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
Well that depends. Do you claim that women should accumulate excess fat over what they would normally accumulate without ingesting carbohydrate except that found in animal flesh? If that's what you claim, then you'll have to refute your own claim that ingesting carbohydrate stops ketosis. Ketosis which you also claim is a normal process of pregnancy. I don't see how you can reconcile both sides.

I don't know everything that happens during pregnancy but I'm sure there's a whole lot going on that takes care to lay down the necessary fat without ingestion of carbohydrate above that found in animal flesh. The alternative is that women are supposed to be fed a special diet containing more carbohydrate. This doesn't fit current knowledge of the effects of an all meat diet on pregnancy. The Inuit do just fine of making and feeding babies on their exclusive diet of animal flesh.

Gary Taubes makes an argument that men and women lay down fat differently. It doesn't refute that carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat accumulation. It simply points out that it does so differently for women than it does for men. I'm just repeating myself at this point.


Martin - you keep mixing up fat accumulation with excess fat accumulation - one is not the same as the other....women MUST lay down fat for their reproductive system to work. You contend that carbohydrate is not part of the human diet. So how, exactly, does a female lay down fat stores without carbohydrate in the diet? Again, just lay out the biological process by which this is possible. Remember you've claimed you can't lay down fat without carbohydrate - so what is the mechanism by which women can lay down fat to get and stay pregnant?


There is an excellent database of Inuit foods - surprisingly many contain carbohydrate and there is no known Inuit population that consumes only, exclysively, year-round animal foods only....plants are part of the Inuit diet - the type is very different than we're accustomed to, but that doesn't mean they never consume plants in their traditional diet.
Show me one population - any population - documented - that traditionally consumed absolutely never any plant-based foods. Is it that no such population exists, just as no exclusively vegan population exists?

IMO it's one thing to point to excess carbohydrate and another to assume that if too much is bad, even a little is bad.....it's like the opposite of taking a little bit of a vitamin supplement and thinking more is better......EXCESS is a problem - but we are designed to include some carbohydrate in our diets - otherwise, how exactly do you explain why we have amalyse in our saliva? Why do skeletal remains have the remains of starch on the teeth?

I do not think we're supposed to be eating carbohydrate in the quantity we do now - or even close to the level we've consumed for a few thousand years....but I also do not think that we are obligate carnivores - we're not, we're apex predators and hunter-gatherers.....why gatherer if we didn't "gather" plant foods along with what we had from teh hunt? Were our ancestors tainted by nutritionalism? I think not....I think they just ate what they found worked well for them to survive, thrive and reproduce.....and that included some carbohydrate.
Reply With Quote
  #26   ^
Old Fri, Jan-02-09, 17:03
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Gary Taubes makes an argument that men and women lay down fat differently. It doesn't refute that carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat accumulation. It simply points out that it does so differently for women than it does for men. I'm just repeating myself at this point.


You have yet to articulate how a woman lays fat down differently than a man, and why......and how without carbohydrate driving insulin driving fat accumulation. If it's carbohydrate driving insulin driving fat - and one eliminates carbohydrate - does one not then eliminate the ability to accumulate fat? So then, how would a woman accumulate fat stores to support pregnancy without carbohydrate? That's the burning question you're avoiding an answer to. So what do you think is behind fat accumulation in women without carbohydrate?
Reply With Quote
  #27   ^
Old Fri, Jan-02-09, 17:03
Judynyc's Avatar
Judynyc Judynyc is offline
Attitude is a Choice
Posts: 30,111
 
Plan: No sugar, flour, wheat
Stats: 228.4/209.0/170 Female 5'6"
BF:stl/too/mch
Progress: 33%
Location: NYC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regina
I do not think we're supposed to be eating carbohydrate in the quantity we do now - or even close to the level we've consumed for a few thousand years....but I also do not think that we are obligate carnivores - we're not, we're apex predators and hunter-gatherers.....why gatherer if we didn't "gather" plant foods along with what we had from the hunt? Were our ancestors tainted by nutritionalism? I think not....I think they just ate what they found worked well for them to survive, thrive and reproduce.....and that included some carbohydrate.


Thank you, Regina!
Very well said!!
Reply With Quote
  #28   ^
Old Fri, Jan-02-09, 17:16
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
Martin - you keep mixing up fat accumulation with excess fat accumulation - one is not the same as the other....women MUST lay down fat for their reproductive system to work. You contend that carbohydrate is not part of the human diet. So how, exactly, does a female lay down fat stores without carbohydrate in the diet? Again, just lay out the biological process by which this is possible.


There is an excellent database of Inuit foods - surprisingly many contain carbohydrate and there is no known Inuit population that consumes only, exclysively, year-round animal foods only....plants are part of the Inuit diet - the type is very different than we're accustomed to, but that doesn't mean they never consume plants in their traditional diet.
Show me one population - any population - documented - that traditionally consumed absolutely never any plant-based foods. Is it that no such population exists, just as no exclusively vegan population exists?

IMO it's one thing to point to excess carbohydrate and another to assume that if too much is bad, even a little is bad.....it's like the opposite of taking a little bit of a vitamin supplement and thinking more is better......EXCESS is a problem - but we are designed to include some carbohydrate in our diets - otherwise, how exactly do you explain why we have amalyse in our saliva? Why do skeletal remains have the remains of starch on the teeth?

I do not think we're supposed to be eating carbohydrate in the quantity we do now - or even close to the level we've consumed for a few thousand years....but I also do not think that we are obligate carnivores - we're not, we're apex predators and hunter-gatherers.....why gatherer if we didn't "gather" plant foods along with what we had from teh hunt? Were our ancestors tainted by nutritionalism? I think not....I think they just ate what they found worked well for them to survive, thrive and reproduce.....and that included some carbohydrate.


We agree on this point. Where we don't agree is where to draw the line. I draw it to not more than what is found in animal flesh. Beyond this point, there is no consensus to how much plant carbohydrate we should eat. You still draw your line somewhere above mine but you can't draw it for everybody since you claim that this line is individual. Indeed, the only sure fire way to know without sophisticated methods i.e. with a sharp stick and a rock, how much carbohydrate is good for us is to eat animal flesh which we know contains only a limited fixed amount that is by all accounts as safe as can be.

The line you draw is arbitrary. It's based on what you think is a safe threshold of plant carbohydrate which in turn is based on your personal threshold which in turn is defined probably as what makes you fat (or sick) below which is the safe zone. The problem with this logic is that with time we grow insulin resistant so the safe zone is a moving target always lower which is hardly an argument in favor of carbohydrate.
Reply With Quote
  #29   ^
Old Fri, Jan-02-09, 17:22
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
You have yet to articulate how a woman lays fat down differently than a man, and why......and how without carbohydrate driving insulin driving fat accumulation. If it's carbohydrate driving insulin driving fat - and one eliminates carbohydrate - does one not then eliminate the ability to accumulate fat? So then, how would a woman accumulate fat stores to support pregnancy without carbohydrate? That's the burning question you're avoiding an answer to. So what do you think is behind fat accumulation in women without carbohydrate?


I don't need to articulate how a woman lays down fat differently than man. I only have to show that they do. But since Gary Taubes does it better than me, I don't have to do zilch but to point you to his book which I did.

Now you argue the difference between fat accumulation and excess fat accumulation. As if I was confused and you should enlighten me. I use the term fat accumulation to mean excess fat accumulation but now I realize that I should have used the proper term to begin with or you would be on my case over semantics. I return the question: What is fat accumulation then? Don't bother it's rhetorical question.
Reply With Quote
  #30   ^
Old Fri, Jan-02-09, 17:28
J-lo carb J-lo carb is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 268
 
Plan: my plan
Stats: 162.5/148/145 Female 5' 8"
BF:
Progress: 83%
Default

Regina, if you only had meat to eat while you were pregnant, and your body needed to put on more fat, it would make its own glucose from the protein. I don't get it, you know that. Why are you asking that? You know you don't need carbohydrates to make the glucose.
Reply With Quote
Closed Thread

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 00:22.


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