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


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46   ^
Old Thu, Sep-17-09, 06:53
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 7,582
 
Plan: EF/Fung IDM/keto
Stats: 375/225.4/175 Female 66.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 75%
Location: NE Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valtor
Of course, I'm not going through this surgery for this reason, I'm doing it because I've lost enough weight that I have too much skin dangling.

Do you? From your stats it looks like you are currently down about 80 pounds. I'm also down about 80 pounds, though I don't have any particular dangling skin - at least no more than I had 80 pounds ago, - But I sure do dream about being able to have liposuction suck out a bunch of the fat in my belly and hips!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #47   ^
Old Thu, Sep-17-09, 07:23
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,036
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
...Why eat the antidote and the poison anyway? Why not just skip the poison, skip the antidote and be done with it?

I'm just explaining what science tells us is different from eating fructose in fruits and added fructose where it's not supposed to be.

That said, I do agree with you. But if you are going to skip the fruits and still eat high carb, you will probably miss some vitamins. Because eating carbs requires more vitamins. So one would have to eat more vegetables I guess. I myself do not eat any fruits whatsoever and little vegetables. I don't like fruits anyway. So I have to supplement with vitamins to compensate. Yes I know what you are going to say.

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #48   ^
Old Thu, Sep-17-09, 07:27
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,036
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
So, high everything to fix the problems of high carbohydrate? That won't work. Merely adding carbohydrate to a traditional diet will cause the diseases of civilization. Excuse me, the symptoms of carbohydrate poisoning. Fructose is inflammatory. So is glucose. So is insulin. Chronic ingestion? How about 86 grams per day of carbohydrate, is that chronic? That's the threshold for the diseases of civilization to appear. 70lbs per year for 20 years. And he says to eat as much carbohydrate as we can? I don't take his advice seriously at all.

Like I said, this is where we disagree. We can't ignore the evidence that people worldwide were healthy on all sorts of different macronutrient ratios.

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #49   ^
Old Thu, Sep-17-09, 07:32
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,036
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merpig
Do you? From your stats it looks like you are currently down about 80 pounds. I'm also down about 80 pounds, though I don't have any particular dangling skin - at least no more than I had 80 pounds ago, - But I sure do dream about being able to have liposuction suck out a bunch of the fat in my belly and hips!

I assure you that I would not go through this just to lose weight. If that is what I wanted, I could just have liposuction and be done with it. It would even save me a lot of money.

People who know me say that I don't look overweight. That's because they never saw me naked. It could be that most of the 80 pounds I lost came from the abdomen, but I'm not sure. If you check my before photo, I look big all over.

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #50   ^
Old Thu, Sep-17-09, 07:55
LAwoman75's Avatar
LAwoman75 LAwoman75 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,741
 
Plan: Whole food, semi low carb
Stats: 165/165/140 Female 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: Ozark Mt's
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valtor
I assure you that I would not go through this just to lose weight. If that is what I wanted, I could just have liposuction and be done with it. It would even save me a lot of money.

People who know me say that I don't look overweight. That's because they never saw me naked. It could be that most of the 80 pounds I lost came from the abdomen, but I'm not sure. If you check my before photo, I look big all over.

Patrick


Some people mistaken a tummy tuck for a weight loss surgery. It is certainly not. It is a surgery to removed excess skin and to repair muscles (muscle repair is needed mostly in women who have had children.) .Having a tummy tuck will not make anyone skinny. I had one last November and I've had to correct my sister in law many times who said I lost my weight because of a tummy tuck. No, I had a tummy tuck because I lost so much weight and carried two 8 lb babies and was left with a disaster of a stomach.

Sorry, just needed to get that out.

I think I need to read more on Stone's ideas. Patrick, you chimed in on my journal once and said that my daily diet resembled some of his principles. I've never truly been very low carb. There couple times I went very low carb, I felt terrible and lost nothing. I've always been in the moderate range, I've always eaten some fruit, lots of vegetables, and even some whole grain bread, oatmeal, and brown rice. So those who are willing to dismiss this idea too quick need to at least read and learn from it. I know I could never live the rest of my life on meat and water. I don't think that's sustainable as I've never heard of anyone who has done this long term and is happy with it (5 years or more). All carbs are not evil and can actually be good for us.
Reply With Quote
  #51   ^
Old Thu, Sep-17-09, 09:59
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 Valtor
Like I said, this is where we disagree. We can't ignore the evidence that people worldwide were healthy on all sorts of different macronutrient ratios.

Patrick

Proportions are meaningless. Absolute quantity is what's important. 70lbs per year for 20 years is the threshold for the DOCs to appear. Where those carbohydrate come from is irrelevant. Refined (fiber taken out basically) means we can eat a whole lot more and attain that threshold more easily and develop the DOCs sooner, which is happening right now all over. Yet it's not the refining or processing that does this since we can refine and process fat meat to make pemmican out of it and that's about as good as the original if not better. Diabetic (type 2) kids!? It used to be called "adult onset" for a reason. But now that we eat about 150lbs of sugar per year, the DOCs appear much, much sooner.

The evidence says that every population that added carbohydrate to their diet promptly developed the DOCs. If I was a pharma giant and if there's one angle I'd take seriously, it'd be that one.
Reply With Quote
  #52   ^
Old Thu, Sep-17-09, 10:36
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,036
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
Proportions are meaningless. Absolute quantity is what's important. 70lbs per year for 20 years is the threshold for the DOCs to appear. Where those carbohydrate come from is irrelevant. Refined (fiber taken out basically) means we can eat a whole lot more and attain that threshold more easily and develop the DOCs sooner, which is happening right now all over. Yet it's not the refining or processing that does this since we can refine and process fat meat to make pemmican out of it and that's about as good as the original if not better. Diabetic (type 2) kids!? It used to be called "adult onset" for a reason. But now that we eat about 150lbs of sugar per year, the DOCs appear much, much sooner.

The evidence says that every population that added carbohydrate to their diet promptly developed the DOCs. If I was a pharma giant and if there's one angle I'd take seriously, it'd be that one.

"70lbs per year for 20 years is the threshold for the DOCs to appear." That statement was based on people who switched to a "modern" diet that included sucrose and caffeine. Why should we throw the baby with the bath water? We now know how all the different carbs are actually metabolized and what deleterious effect (if any) they each have. The bad stuff that glucose does by itself is truly benign and easily cleaned up by our body. Added fructose, PUFA, caffeine and ethanol accounts for 80% of what overrides those mechanism and results in MetS/DOCs. It is clearly shown how chronic over consumption of fructose results in insulin resistance. Of course, when this happens, you might have problems with glucose too for a while, until you healed enough.

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #53   ^
Old Thu, Sep-17-09, 14:24
Matt51 Matt51 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 704
 
Plan: semi-low carb
Stats: 277/200/177 Male 69 inches
BF:
Progress: 77%
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Default

Eating half a pound of fatty meat three times a day and nothing else, worked for the patients treated by Pennington. Those who say they can't lose weight, I bet they can, if they stick to Pennington's diet.
Caffeine is good for you, according to Ray Peat. I agree. Mayo Clinic dot com says there is no such thing as "worn out adrenals". Just an urban legend.
As we know from Dr K, their are four diet zones to be in. High carb, high fat is the worst zone. This is the Matt Stone recommendation, the worst zone. Going high carb, low fat is better, and going high fat, low carb, is best.
Reply With Quote
  #54   ^
Old Thu, Sep-17-09, 14:40
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

I think the fundamentals of:

* Obesity may be the result of, or cause, or worsen, malnutrition;

* Metabolism is adaptive to intake;

* Resolving cellular-level nutrient depletion may improve health which could include hormonal balance which may affect metabolism;

These things I think are fair.

How the third item is gone about is the question.

Matt recommends eating everything in sight that isn't sugar/O6/Caffeine. That's one way.

I just recently spent awhile gathering every supplement imaginable to dose myself with in addition to whatever eating I do. That's another way.

Maybe there are other options.

I don't think the base ideas are wrong, I just think that the implementation of "nutrify-yourself!" is a big variable that can be as badly done as anything else.

PJ
Reply With Quote
  #55   ^
Old Thu, Sep-17-09, 15:20
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,036
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt51
Eating half a pound of fatty meat three times a day and nothing else, worked for the patients treated by Pennington. Those who say they can't lose weight, I bet they can, if they stick to Pennington's diet.
Caffeine is good for you, according to Ray Peat. I agree. Mayo Clinic dot com says there is no such thing as "worn out adrenals". Just an urban legend.
As we know from Dr K, their are four diet zones to be in. High carb, high fat is the worst zone. This is the Matt Stone recommendation, the worst zone. Going high carb, low fat is better, and going high fat, low carb, is best.

There are a lot of ways to lose weight. I'm interested in losing weight permanently. That said, I am not willing to eat like the Inuits. I have a social life that is important too, my life is not just about nutrition. I would probably lose my girlfriend if I went on all meat for the rest of my life. So I am left with identifying the hypothesis that fits ALL observations regarding nutrition. So far what I listed in the first post covers 80% of it. At least for preventing obesity, for someone already obese I'm not sure.

All the research you will find supporting the use of Caffeine are not related to chronic use of Caffeine. This word "chronic" is the key to a better understanding of the results of scientific experiments in nutrition.

Regarding adrenals, it looks like you are right.

http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quacker...Topics/ace.html

As for "diet zones". There is simply no science behind this concept.

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #56   ^
Old Thu, Sep-17-09, 15:42
Seejay's Avatar
Seejay Seejay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,025
 
Plan: Optimal Diet
Stats: 00/00/00 Female 62 inches
BF:
Progress: 8%
Default

You do know the quackwatch guy is a quack himself?
It's just one guy's opinion and he basically has a faulty premise: if it's not mainstream it's quackery.

It is amusing to watch him put on people (like the Eades) who have enough money for a lawyer's cease-and-desist letter and then he takes them off his list. Oh brother.
Reply With Quote
  #57   ^
Old Thu, Sep-17-09, 15:46
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,036
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seejay
You do know the quackwatch guy is a quack himself?
It's just one guy's opinion and he basically has a faulty premise: if it's not mainstream it's quackery.

It is amusing to watch him put on people (like the Eades) who have enough money for a lawyer's cease-and-desist letter and then he takes them off his list. Oh brother.

I was just having some fun. But I'm a lot less proficient with sarcasm than Matt Stone.

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #58   ^
Old Thu, Sep-17-09, 17:21
Seejay's Avatar
Seejay Seejay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,025
 
Plan: Optimal Diet
Stats: 00/00/00 Female 62 inches
BF:
Progress: 8%
Default

(blush) ok sorry!
Reply With Quote
  #59   ^
Old Thu, Sep-17-09, 17:25
Matt51 Matt51 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 704
 
Plan: semi-low carb
Stats: 277/200/177 Male 69 inches
BF:
Progress: 77%
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Default

There are different diet zones because your body has two different fueling systems available to it.
http://www.ptbo.igs.net/~stanb/Heretical.htm
Dr K says go one way or the other, don't confuse your body with a dual fueling system.
Eating all meat, if it is healthier, would not cause you to lose any worthwhile girlfriend. You could be thinner and find another.
Reply With Quote
  #60   ^
Old Thu, Sep-17-09, 18:04
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 Valtor
The bad stuff that glucose does by itself is truly benign and easily cleaned up by our body.

Not true. Insulin is directly atherogenic. Glucose also causes accelerated aging, among other things. Aging is irreversible however atherosclerosis is partly if not wholly reversible by cutting out carbs which subsequently lowers insulin.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 13:32.


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