Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paleo Vs. Atkins

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
    You said Atkins was right for the wrong reasons. His reasons were research and experience, but it sounds like nothing short of coming up with the original concept of paleo would have fit your bill.
    The 'concept of paleo' can also just be a narrative that is 'right for the wrong reasons'.

    So, you can both be wrong?
    Last edited by magicmerl; 04-04-2013, 03:03 PM.
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

    Comment


    • #47
      I have to wonder what you purpose is, Maurile, in trying to discredit Atkins. Your quoting of Guyenet's theorizing is simply more theory and proves nothing. Again, experience trumps theory. I don't need to understand WHY Atkins worked nor WHY low fat didn't. I just know that Atkins worked for me after years and years and years of trying the CW nonsense, and even your Guyenet admits that, so what's the point?
      Starting Weight: 197.5
      Current Weight: 123
      Far healthier!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Kaminokamen View Post
        I've been reading the 21 Day Transformation and, I'm fighting ADHD, so I don't retain a lot, due to constantly daydreaming and not being focused, but I've read that it is a no grain diet with carbs from fruits and veggies I guess? So, I guess it isn't, but he is relating that grains have a buttload of carbs, so it becomes a low carb diet, but I guess I need to compensate with more fruits and veggies?
        Or you can eat some rice and sweet potatoes, even white potatoes if they work for you. I tend to be on the lower carb end but I eat sweet potatoes sometimes.
        Out of context quote for the day:

        Clearly Gorbag is so awesome he should be cloned, reproducing in the normal manner would only dilute his awesomeness. - Urban Forager

        Comment


        • #49
          Happy to answer, ForgotMyOldUsername. Atkins starts at the induction level of 25 net carbs. I lost weight without being hungry for the first time in so many years I cannot count them. There is a structure for adding back foods and increasing carb intake until one finds a level where they can continue to lose and ultimately maintain their loss. Likely due to my age and all the stupid advice I've followed from the medical community, I was not able to move thru that list very fast. Basically I ate meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, almost every vegetable except the starchy ones and lower carb fruits, good fats and occasional dairy. I find now -- sev'l years after reaching and maintaining my loss -- that my body has made some sort of adjustment. I can add back starchy vegetables and small amounts of white rice without problem, although in the past I gained when I experimented with those foods. So basically, my diet is the same with those additions. I occasionally used low carb products in the past but eliminated them entirely when I moved to what I call Paleo-Atkins.
          Last edited by janie; 04-04-2013, 03:15 PM.
          Starting Weight: 197.5
          Current Weight: 123
          Far healthier!

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
            You said Atkins was right for the wrong reasons. His reasons were research and experience, but it sounds like nothing short of coming up with the original concept of paleo would have fit your bill.
            No, his reason (i.e., proposed mechanism) was that carb consumption promotes insulin, which promotes fat-storage. That's not really correct in a meaningful (as opposed to superficial) sense.

            The actual reasons that carb-restriction promotes weight loss are generally too complicated to describe in one sentence, but they seem to include effects on leptin signaling, bodyweight set point, and food reward. To take one example, your body has a natural feedback system that, when it's functioning correctly, causes you to feel hungrier in response to fat loss, and causes a reduced appetite in response to fat gain. The overall effect is to keep your weight generally stable. This feedback system, however, can be thrown off by foods that are highly palatable, high in calories, and low in micronutrients, fiber, and water content. Such foods can magnify your hunger in response to fat loss, and blunt any reduction in appetite in response to fat gain. Note that I've just described most highly processed, manufactured foods — most of which contain substantial added sugar and would be excluded by Atkins for that reason. The elimination of these foods goes a long way toward making weight loss easier, but not for the reason that Dr. Atkins thought. It's not simply because of their carb content. (If carbs were inherently fattening, the potato-diet woudln't work so well.)

            That's just one example; there are other reasons, too, why the Atkins diet is helpful for weight loss. But the reasons that the Atkins diet actually works, and the reasons that Dr. Atkins hypothesized that it works, do not perfectly overlap. He was wrong about some of the reasons.
            Last edited by maurile; 04-04-2013, 04:19 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by janie View Post
              I don't need to understand WHY Atkins worked nor WHY low fat didn't.
              Sure, you don't need to understand it, and I don't really need to understand it. But if the science of fat loss is going to continue to progress, it seems that biochemists, neurobiologists, and scientists in similar fields should try to understand it — and indeed they are doing so. Why the resistance to that?

              After all, Dr. Atkins himself thought it was important to accurately understand the mechanisms of bodyfat regulation. He wrote whole books about it! The fact that he didn't solve the whole enchilada for once and for all during his lifetime, and that progress has since continued to be made — sometimes confirming his work, sometimes refuting it — doesn't change that.
              Last edited by maurile; 04-04-2013, 04:34 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by janie View Post
                Again, experience trumps theory.
                One more point on this. Experience does trump theory, which is part of the reason we know that the "carbs —> insulin —> bodyfat" theory is incorrect: Because it's directly contradicted by the experience of many high-carb dieters. Look at the results people are getting around here in the potato-diet threads. Look at how fit and lean certain modern foragers are who get 90+ percent of their calories from starch. Consider that, by and large, those doofus fruitarians at 30bananasaday are the skinniest people on the internet.

                Just as the stupid low-fat proponents should have known better after observing the Inuit and the Masai, low-carb proponents should have known better after observing the Tukisenta, Okinawans, and Kitavans. While a low-carb diet can promote weight loss in some people, carbs are not inherently fattening. (After all, a low-fat diet can also promote weight loss in some people. That doesn't mean that fat is inherently fattening, does it?)
                Last edited by maurile; 04-04-2013, 05:09 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Maurile, I know this is sudden, but I think I love you.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by maurile View Post
                    No, his reason (i.e., proposed mechanism) was that carb consumption promotes insulin, which promotes fat-storage. That's not really correct in a meaningful (as opposed to superficial) sense.

                    The actual reasons that carb-restriction promotes weight loss are generally too complicated to describe in one sentence, but they seem to include effects on leptin signaling, bodyweight set point, and food reward. To take one example, your body has a natural feedback system that, when it's functioning correctly, causes you to feel hungrier in response to fat loss, and causes a reduced appetite in response to fat gain. The overall effect is to keep your weight generally stable. This feedback system, however, can be thrown off by foods that are highly palatable, high in calories, and low in micronutrients, fiber, and water content. Such foods can magnify your hunger in response to fat loss, and blunt any reduction in appetite in response to fat gain. Note that I've just described most highly processed, manufactured foods most of which contain substantial added sugar and would be excluded by Atkins for that reason. The elimination of these foods goes a long way toward making weight loss easier, but not for the reason that Dr. Atkins thought. It's not simply because of their carb content. (If carbs were inherently fattening, the potato-diet woudln't work so well.)

                    That's just one example; there are other reasons, too, why the Atkins diet is helpful for weight loss. But the reasons that the Atkins diet actually works, and the reasons that Dr. Atkins hypothesized that it works, do not perfectly overlap. He was wrong about some of the reasons.
                    So you took a long paragraph and still didn't explain these complicated method? But went on to talk about everything that can be explained via the Insulin Hypothesis. You say things like "causes you to feel hungrier", "feed back system", or "foods can magnify your hunger" and fail to explain the mechanism by which all of those things occur. If you want to reject the insulin hypothesis you have to come up with something in it's place.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by maurile View Post
                      Sure, you don't need to understand it, and I don't really need to understand it. But if the science of fat loss is going to continue to progress, it seems that biochemists, neurobiologists, and scientists in similar fields should try to understand it and indeed they are doing so. Why the resistance to that?
                      Meh, I think it's all academic. The laws of nature exist and we just need to put into action what works. Banting didn't know why it worked, Atkins I recall said he didn't understand why it works, Taubes thinks he knows, meanwhile the laws of nature remain what they are, and we know what they are...don't eat carbs, don't get fat. Easy, done.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Observe people shopping and dining--my hunch is that 90% of modern folks' carbohydrate is powdery, syrupy, high-gluten, high-fructose appetite stimulants. If a VLC menu eliminates those things, the health benefits should be no surprise.

                        A modern Westerner who deliberately chooses whole starches is a pretty rare beast. I don't know if we have enough evidence to describe them but I suspect they function well.
                        37//6'3"/185

                        My peculiar nutrition glossary and shopping list

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by 0Angel0 View Post
                          So you took a long paragraph and still didn't explain these complicated method? But went on to talk about everything that can be explained via the Insulin Hypothesis.
                          Nothing in my post is explained by the insulin hypothesis. How does the insulin hypothesis account for the fact that high-carb processed foods disregulate appetite, but high-carb whole foods do not, even in the cases where the whole foods produce a greater insulin response?

                          You say things like "causes you to feel hungrier", "feed back system", or "foods can magnify your hunger" and fail to explain the mechanism by which all of those things occur. If you want to reject the insulin hypothesis you have to come up with something in it's place.
                          By "you," I assume you don't mean me personally. I haven't personally come up with any proposed mechanisms for how appetite and bodyfat are regulated by diet. But researchers in those areas have. I hinted at a few of them when I mentioned leptin signaling, bodyweight set point, and food reward. If you're interested in reading up on them, the best summaries I know of are in the archives of Stephan Guyenet's blog. (Here are the tags for leptin, food reward, and low-carb. There isn't a tag for setpoint, but here's the beginning of a series of posts on it.)

                          In any case, though, it's not actually necessary to come up with potential alternative mechanisms in order to show that some particular proposed mechanism is flawed. It's enough to show that experimental results are inconsistent with the implications of the proposed mechanism.

                          In the case of the "carbs —> insulin —> bodyfat" theory, I already mentioned that the fitness and leanness of the ultra-high-carb Tukisenta (et al.) are problematic for the theory. Here are a couple other thorns in its side:

                          1. Though insulin is sometimes referred to as the "hunger hormone" in low-carb circles, did you know that insulin is actually associated with satiety rather than hunger? (link)

                          2. Did you know that the release of insulin is triggered not only by carbs, but also by protein? In fact, 100 calories of beef stimulates a greater insulin response than 100 calories of white pasta; 100 calories of fish stimulates a greater insulin response than 100 calories of porridge; and 100 calories of cheese stimulates a greater insulin response than 100 calories of all-bran breakfast cereal. (link)
                          Last edited by maurile; 04-05-2013, 12:28 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            My two cents:

                            Biggest difference between Paleo/Primal and Atkins is the whole vegetable oil thing.

                            Atkins doesn't differentiate much between fats, but

                            Paleo/Primal is HUGE on avoiding bad fats. It's more about the quality of the food - healthy fats, high quality nutrient dense foods,

                            and also avoiding foods that are problematic for many ie. wheat, most grains, and as an issue that is big for most people who want to changentheirnway if eating, eating carbs appropriate to your activity level. For the majority, this means lowering carbs.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by maurile View Post
                              In any case, though, it's not actually necessary to come up with potential alternative mechanisms in order to show that some particular proposed mechanism is flawed. It's enough to show that experimental results are inconsistent with the implications of the proposed mechanism.
                              It is actually. You are throwing out the Insulin Hypothesis completely and failing to grasp that just because a single hypothesis doesn't entirely explain away every single part of human metabolism, satiety, and fat storage/burning that must mean it's entirely false.

                              In the case of the "carbs —> insulin —> bodyfat" theory, I already mentioned that the fitness and leanness of the ultra-high-carb Tukisenta (et al.) are problematic for the theory. Here are a couple other thorns in its side:

                              1. Though insulin is sometimes referred to as the "hunger hormone" in low-carb circles, did you know that insulin is actually associated with satiety rather than hunger? (link)
                              You realized you just linked a study talking about satiety in which protein heavy meals were given to the subjects? That study was comparing the effects of protein on several different factors. Not specifically looking at how carb driven insulin spikes can casue satiety. Yet another example of someone randomly posting a link to a study they do not understand and in fact doesn't support the conclusions they are drawing.

                              2. Did you know that the release of insulin is triggered not only by carbs, but also by protein? In fact, 100 calories of beef stimulates a greater insulin response than 100 calories of white pasta; 100 calories of fish stimulates a greater insulin response than 100 calories of porridge; and 100 calories of cheese stimulates a greater insulin response than 100 calories of all-bran breakfast cereal. (link)
                              Yes actually I did know that. Did you know that the insulin secreted in response to protein is accompanied by glucagon? Look it up. See this is where you need to employ some critical thinking and understand that the human body is complex and far from simple. Insulin isn't the enemy. We'd die without it. However, eating a low carb diet and not spiking insulin or worse chronically elevating it can have real health effects with weight loss being one of them. Unregulated insulin levels can make or keep people fat! That is a biochemical fact.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                OAngelO, next time you're in San Diego, I want to cook you a steak.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X