My pet theory is that the water fraction is a big deal. Folks eat defective dry food, lose health, and blame the effect on glucose. Bread, pasta, granola, cereal, popcorn, and crackers have horrifyingly high kcal/pound (more than any steak or egg) so if satiety is influenced by stomach weight those foods will lead to gross energy excess.
By contrast I do not restrict the following foods: potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, parsnips, taro, cassava, lotus root, burdock root, squashes (butternut, kabocha, acorn), plantains, breadfruit, chestnuts, acorns (Korean “dotori”), berries, citrus, melons, stone fruits (nectarines, cherries, apricots), tropical fruit, pears, apples, grapes. I do measure and minimize tapioca flour, dates, honey, etc.
Despite not restricting, when I examine the menu I virtually never exceed 150g carbohydrate in a day just following my appetite. Average is closer to 100g. This is low-carb by USDA standards and lower-carb than any national average on the planet. Am I unusual? Who knows, but this approach gives me a lot of serenity.
Last edited by canuck416; 07-28-2013 at 12:08 PM.
Thanks for the link!! Great info!
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
I've read that study, and the improvement in beta-cell function was associated with reduced ectopic fat (lipotoxicity) as a result of the severe caloric restriction, yet Spreadbury presented it as support for a low carbohydrate paleo diet.Originally Posted by Ian Spreadbury
Anyhow... that's a good article about carbohydrate requirements. Thanks for sharing.
This article reminds me alot of mark's "carb curve" that gets severely lambasted on these forums, just lyle doesn't really go into fat-loss regarding the carb partitioning, more of a 'go with what works for you'.
In light of this, alot of people plonk themselves somewhere along this range and stay there. In fact 3 distinct "camps" have kind of formed that most primal dieters align to and fight about. They are low, medium and high carb eating (duh). Unless you have a specific need to be in one of these camps (like keto for epilepsy and cancer control), I believe it is less than optimal to align with one specific carb eating "camp". The optimal way to eat carbs in my books is to "eat the range" and be in all the camps cyclically over a week or fortnight. A few brief reasons for this are;
*gene expression, ancient man for millions of years, would've had a very fluctuating range of macro and cal amounts that he ate on a daily/weekly basis.
*our bodies tend to suffer chronically if we don't give body systems a rest. sitting at one end of the carb spectrum means one metabolic glucose processing system is not getting used while the other is constantly used.(once again, don't flame me if you need to align with a camp to alleviate serious conditions).
but yeah, lyle is a good goto for base nutritional or metabolic knowledge.
A little primal gem - My Success Story
Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)
Regarding sago, there seems to be a dose-response relationship involved between refinement and metabolic and health outcomes. Most bread-eating Westerners were not obese until we really pushed the industrialisation and refinement of food to new heights in the late 20th century. The sago eaters likely still have plenty of whole foods in their diet, but, like 1900s Europeans, I suspect it is unlikely they have hunter-gatherer or Kitavan levels of metabolic and inflammatory health despite their leanness.
Lyle also says: if you have a sweet tooth, eat some artificially sweetened jello (on low carb days). Lyle is very much into chemistry games. I dunno, for me Lyle is an alternative to Paleo. I see paleo as natural eating, while Lyle's as highly constructed and artificial. His approaches can be extreme. They get results. And they are hard to achieve without aids of artificial foods.
My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.