Everyone is entitled to their point of view - I'm just surprised that someone who agrees with plant positive on low carb, is hanging out in a low carb support group.


Lee

I want a transcript of the narrative. Otherwise, I have to transcribe it myself and I won't do that. Without a transcript, I'm going to say we can safely ignore the entire series, and it wouldn't put a dent in our lives.

Let me show you why I want a transcript, and why I say we can safely ignore the entire series. In this thread, somebody cited one of the videos:
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=449429

I transcribed just a short narrative to illustrate my point here:

From this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoAflQdc3CE


See what I mean? There's nothing substantial in this short transcript. It's all opinion. Well, as I often say, my opinion is always better than yours (in this case, better than his). With a transcript of the whole series, I bet a million bucks we're going to find tons of that nonsense. And this tells you pretty much what "the other side" says about low-carb. I've had tons of discussions with opponents of low-carb. The common theme is the lack of facts, the tendency to lie, and finally the classic "You're not reasonable so I don't see any reason to continue this discussion with you". Funny, I always want to continue a discussion with them. It's fun!

I'm not. An evangelist hangs out where the people are who need to be saved.

That's the intuitive conclusion based on the First Law of Thermodynamics. Me and many others have already explained many times why this intuition is not necessarily true, so I won't do it now. I'll use a different approach this time.

Fat tissue is regulated by hormones. Which hormones are regulated by calories?

No need to understand biology to see it's a trick question. So what's the trick? Well, first, fat tissue is where calories are stored. Second, fat tissue is indeed regulated by hormones. Consequently, the hormones that regulate fat tissue, also regulate calories by extension. Now do you see the trick?

When you say "Eating more calories than you burn causes weight gain", what you're really saying is "calories regulate hormones, which in turn regulate fat tissue". As I've shown above, that's not how it works. Basically, you fell for the trick.

But why is it a trick? Simple. The hormones that regulate fat tissue, regulate the calories that are both inside and outside fat tissue. "Outside" means those calories that have not yet arrived at the fat tissue, that are in the bloodstream, in the gut, in the mouth.

Here's a simple explanation of how this thing works. Imagine you eat tons of food. If the hormones that regulate fat tissue decide not to put any of those calories inside fat tissue, you won't gain weight. This is what happens with diabetes type 1 for example, where insulin is just not there to put those calories inside fat tissue. Now imagine you eat a tiny amount of food. If the hormones that regulate fat tissue decide to put all those calories inside fat tissue, you will gain weight. This is what happens with obesity, where insulin is really high, i.e., hyperinsulinemia. As we can see, how much food you eat means nothing. What matters is what hormones do with that food.

Ah, I see, thinking they're saving the world one animal at a time.

Lee

~Femur

I'd like to address your idea about eating "lowest calorie density foods".

As I explained, once we understand that the calories we eat mean nothing, we can see how eating low-density foods makes no sense either. But let's delve a bit deeper in this idea.

What are low-density foods? What are they not? They are not meat, and they are not fat. This means they are all plants, and they are all carbohydrates. Carbs contain 4 kcals per gram, fat contains 9 kcals per gram. We could say meat contains protein, and protein contains 4 kcals per gram, so that would be OK, if we only eat the lean meat. Maybe. For now, let's just look at carbs and plants.

The first question we have to ask is can we digest those low-density foods? After all, if we can't digest them, they're not really food, are they. There's basically two kinds of carbs. Digestible, indigestible. Right there, we can ignore all indigestible carbs, since we can't digest them, so they're not food. All we have left is the digestible carbs. What are they, exactly? Glucose, fructose, sucrose. That's about it. By the way, sucrose is plain old table sugar, and it's made of half glucose and half fructose. So basically, when you're saying "eating the lowest calorie density foods", what you're really saying is "eating sugar".

Maybe you meant something else by "lowest calorie density foods", but that's what I understand.

If you do think indigestible carbs are food, then you have to explain to me why I should starve myself by eating foods that give me exactly zero calories and zero nutrition. They're called "indigestible carbs" for a reason. If I can't digest them, then I can't extract any energy or nutrition out of them, now can I. If I'm starving even though I eat, then we call this a semi-starvation diet. Ancel Keys did an experimental study on semi-starvation back in the '40's. The result? Emaciation and neurosis.

Let's recap.

When you're saying "eating lowest calorie density foods", either you're really saying "eating sugar", or you're really saying "eating a semi-starvation diet". Somehow I think that's not what you meant either way, but there it is. I welcome clarification on what you really meant.

I am living proof that this doesnt work!! I've been on many a diet where I was on low fat/low calorie. They worked to a point, but unfortunately I was climbing the walls with hunger, going to bed at 6pm to stop myself eating, looking pale, drawn and miserable and in the end cheating and eating junk - phew!!

I went on Atkins, within days felt better, no IBS, eczema, arthritus, lethargy... and lost around 90lbs in 9 months! A friend of mine used to put my food intake into one of those nutritional info sites and I was eating on average 4000 calories a day. I started eating bad carbs a couple of years ago and decided that I'd eat them, but keep my calories under 1500 - which I did. I put on around 28lbs! So I'm back now on Atkins, doing roughly 2000 cals a day (I dont really measure them, but I read the labels of what I eat) and have lost the surplus 28lbs!

I dont care a jot about calories, if you truly understand the need for them, the way they are measured and the way our bodies use food, you'd see that calories are like using an inch tape to measure water!!!! Its how our bodies use food that matters

Jo xxx

Not all of Vegs are like that, but what I don't like most about fanatics among them is; they make statements. You ask for source in form of a clinical study. They either dodge your request or give you some studies and names. You find and read the papers, and most of these just contain the words "fat", "increase", "cardiovascular" and "linked" in the same line. 90% of the studies are observational and usually do not deal with experiments to find out whether fat is bad or not. If you point out that studies are a "dead end" and don't prove any radical Veg idea, they start with circular questioning. I find all this very tiresome.

Exactly, arguing with someone who refuses to believe something is quite pointless and just gives you a headache.

I try not to get upset about stuff like this anymore, so all I wanna say is...

Haters gonna hate!

I guess I don't understand the big deal with people simply finding what works best - in all respects - for each individual. There often seems to be this idea that "what works for me will work for everyone." And, people get awfully pushy about "their" way being "the" way.

A perfectly clean, nearly vegan diet did NOT work for me, and I don't mean because of weight. I was slender. However, I became pre-diabetic, had constant gut issues, felt weak, dizzy, lightheaded much of the time. I stuck with it because it was "healthful." Sure it was - for somebody - just not for me. It didn't work for me in enough respects. Weight management was the only thing it had going for it FOR ME. And, my current way of eating probably doesn't work for plenty of other people. But you know what? It works pretty well for me. And, really, that's all that matters when it comes to choosing a dietary plan. You have to choose what works best for yourself, no matter how it works (or doesn't) for others. I have no problem with a vegan diet if it worked for me. The only way I could do it is without grains and most starchier vegetables. Grains cause me gut problems and, along with many starchy vegetables, raise my blood sugar too high. It doesn't matter how many kcals I'm eating or not eating. This is simply my reality. A diet of nothing but non-starchy vegetables is not all that appealing to me, so yes, I eat meat. I do not think that meat is harmful, and I happen to think it provides some good nutrition. I feel fine eating it.

My nearly vegan diet consisted of all 100% natural and real foods. Fresh veggies, fruits, beans, squashes, home made breads. Nothing fake. The only animal product was the occasional small dollop of butter on veggies. That's it. And, I kept that dollop small to keep kcals down. It was a very high quality diet. But, it didn't work for me. Oh, well. I'm glad such diets work great for others, but that is of little consequence when I have to consider my own health.

I did NOT gain the weight in my near-vegetarian days. In fact, I was VERY thin. I AVERAGED 115 lbs, with a three-to-five pound swing. What I did have was wicked awful "sugar swings". And NOT with sugar. I ate nearly NO sugar. I got the wicked awful sugar swings from healthy, whole grain bread on my sandwiches, etc.

Now, when I say "wicked awful"... I mean narcolepsy-inducing, cannot keep my eyes open during the noontime seminar, handwriting goes to hell, from neat to indecipherable chicken scratching. I still have the notes to prove it.

I NEVER want to be like that again. Ever. I'd rather remain at 24% body fat BMI for the rest of my life than 18.

LOVE the analogy of the 'inch tape' to measure water. That's very good.

I am glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. I've seen this phenomena on other forums where low carbers or paleo dieters hang out and the perpetrators are typically one of two varieties: trolls like durianrider or stealth evangelists like femur trying to save people from themselves. I love this diet and it has brought so many positive changes in my life but I don't feel the need to go stalk vegan forums trying to convince them their B12 deficiencies are eventually going to bite them in the butt. IMO it takes a special kind of d-bag to make a habit of doing that kind of thing.

They don't believe that any diet with animal products can be good for you. They don't believe there is any core difference, one person to another. They believe that the vegan way is based on human anatomy and therefore it must be the only way. Any problems from over doing sugar in the past will resolve over time with a vegan diet, in their opinion. To them, it's like we're saying that even though two cars have gasoline engines, one might need diesel.