Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 181 to 187 of 187

Thread: Evidence that Taubes and Lustig are both wrong!!! page 19

  1. #181
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,729
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by AMonkey View Post
    There is no science which shows that low carb, high fat is better (I assume you mean healthwise, or are you talking about weight loss?). Feel free to prove us wrong.

    I'll keep updating over the next hour with what I find. I'm not making any kind of statement, just take the research for what it is. I'm spending some time crawling pub med for evidence whether sugar is inherently harmful or beneficial. I searched "glucose" in the title, only showing controlled clinical trials....
    If you keep your search to short term and in relation to performance, pain, and some specific cognitive stuff then sure there is some data that reflects positively on supplementing glucose. But how does any of that correlate with long term health of an organism? Do those studies compare repetitive dosing over a significant time frame with that of non-dosing?

    Its fairly impossible to provide hard evidence that low carb high fat is inherently better because anyone who looks at the studies will instantly point out one of a couple confounders: 1. the LCHF diet eliminates wheat or other allergens 2. the LCHF has a higher protein content 3. the LCHF has a more nutrient dense profile. There is some interesting stuff that I have read regarding carbohydrate full oxidation requiring more complex I activity which would ultimately lead to more ROS production by the mitochondria. Oxidative stress is basically the factor in aging and metabolic disease. Does this pan out beyond biochem though? Dunno. Have to wait for more studies or till someone points them out I suppose.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...eport=abstract

    "Therefore shifting away from glucose utilization toward lipid and amino acid utilization would be expected to substantially reduce the production of reactive oxygen species, without necessarily reducing ATP production. As described below, other beneficial effects also occur as a result of this altered pattern of glucose fuel use, including a shift toward producing antioxidizing NADPH and increased protein and lipid turnover, which reduces the accumulation of oxidized protein and lipids.

    Jeff Volek recently did allude to some unpublished research about the antioxidative properties of a VLC diet and its implications in better recovery from exercise. Hopefully it hits the wire soon to have a look at.
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 10-25-2013 at 05:50 AM.

  2. #182
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    9,492
    Quote Originally Posted by AMonkey View Post
    What works for you is important, but you cannot talk about other people's bodies with n=1, nor can you decide what is optimal for your body long term.
    Well, I got the idea from doctors who have helped hundreds of patients restore their health so they did the talking about other people's bodies for me. I tried it, it worked. I'm not so n=1 special.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Current squat: 180 x 2. Current Deadlift: 230 x 2

  3. #183
    KimchiNinja's Avatar
    KimchiNinja is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by AMonkey View Post
    There is no science which shows that low carb, high fat is better.
    Yeah there is…

    Stanford, big study, sufficient period of time, people stuck with it. Atkins blew away everyone including Ornish, better weight loss, HDL, TRI, better everything. The vegan who ran the study was pretty amazed, but accepted it.

    The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?) - YouTube

    But it doesn't matter, people worship science, yet they don't believe science. You'll just say "but yeah correlation doesn't mean causation", or "but yeah you don't know for sure what they ate", or "but yeah, whatever".

    Science won't ever proving anything, not in the field of nutrition.

  4. #184
    AMonkey's Avatar
    AMonkey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry H View Post
    "What works for you is important, but you cannot talk about other people's bodies with n=1, nor can you decide what is optimal for your body long term."

    Does this mean we are all unique snowflakes not sharing a common physiology? Extrapolation is a tool used to look for patterns and form theories. There is no absolute knowledge one attains before taking the next step. Sufficient knowledge wd. be a reasonable goal. Thru this protocol if one experiences reversal of symptoms, even healing, there is reasonable grounds to believe continuing in that direction will result in long-term health. Sometimes n=1 is just a conversation stopper.
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes View Post
    Well, I got the idea from doctors who have helped hundreds of patients restore their health so they did the talking about other people's bodies for me. I tried it, it worked. I'm not so n=1 special.
    Just because you can smoke and not get cancer doesn't mean everyone won't.
    Just because you can eat slices of bread and feel healthy doesn't mean everyone can.
    Just because you get sore joints when you eat sugar, doesn't mean every one does.
    Just because you feel crappy eating meat, doesn't mean every one does.

    n=1 is useless generalising for other people, and for long term health effects. Period. I'm not even sure how this is up for discussion when you have people (some of this forum), who feel bad (joint pain, low energy, bad mood, constipation etc) after eating:
    -Meat
    -Vegetables
    -Fruit
    -Starchy vegetables
    -Legumes
    -Dairy
    -Wheat/high carb products

    If n=1 is any kind of logical basis you would be left with nothing. Yes, absolutlety if you feel bad eating milk, then don't eat it, no matter what 'science' or the government or any one else says. But you cannot generalise that "You shouldn't eat milk" or "Milk is bad for you!".

    Nor does n=1 allow you to determine is long term health effects. Many people feel fine eating wheat and omega 6's, yet wheat is perhaps the most commonly demonised food on here.

    I feel enraged with this logic considering fucking vegans promote this crap (Forks and Knives interview with doctors who spout the magic of veganism), Dean Ornish promotes how good thousands of people feel on a high grain diet and you have crystal healers or other bullshitters who claim "Well if I and others feel good on it, thats all the evidence I need!".
    Last edited by AMonkey; 10-28-2013 at 10:24 PM.
    http://lifemutt.blogspot.sg/ - Gaming, Food Reviews and Life in Singapore

  5. #185
    AMonkey's Avatar
    AMonkey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    Yeah there is…

    Stanford, big study, sufficient period of time, people stuck with it. Atkins blew away everyone including Ornish, better weight loss, HDL, TRI, better everything. The vegan who ran the study was pretty amazed, but accepted it.

    The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?) - YouTube

    But it doesn't matter, people worship science, yet they don't believe science. You'll just say "but yeah correlation doesn't mean causation", or "but yeah you don't know for sure what they ate", or "but yeah, whatever".

    Science won't ever proving anything, not in the field of nutrition.
    Can you post the journal article itself please? I can't watch videos at work.
    http://lifemutt.blogspot.sg/ - Gaming, Food Reviews and Life in Singapore

  6. #186
    Dirlot's Avatar
    Dirlot is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    2,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    I'm honestly still here waiting for the evidence that white sugar is harmful in and of itself. Whenever I asked for citations, or proof, it gets tap danced around. You can't with a straight face honestly believe refined sugar has contributed to all the ailments that people claim it does, yet offer no conclusive evidence, and only show that white sugar is harmful in either obscene amounts, coupled with seed oils, or not even sucrose itself. People seem to lump them all together.

    Half of the conditions can be explained away by huge sugar intake and lack of proper nutrients, honestly. I argued with Paleobird about it for a while, and she usually resulted in linking CW articles about teeth and then calling me a bunch of names like "junkie".
    Other than the science from last 100+ years
    The work of Yudkin which Keys bullied out.
    Shorter-term studies show consistent adverse effects of sugar consumption on HDL and triglyceride levels, which could accelerate atherosclerosis. High sugar consumption may worsen diabetes control, and the combination of sugar with protein and fats promotes formation of dietary AGEs, which may be especially detrimental to those with diabetes.
    Sugar and Cardiovascular Disease
    Sugar highs and lows: the impact of diet on cognitive function
    There is a paucity of studies that give definitive answers about the negative health consequences of consuming sugars, The scientific basis of recent US guidance on sugars intake
    Too much sugar, too much carbohydrate, or just too much?
    The purpose of this report is to review the effects of dietary sugar on health, with an emphasis on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and its risk factors. Although there are no dietary trials linking sugar consumption and CVD, there are several reasons why sugar consumption should be limited.
    Sugar and Cardiovascular Disease

    And this explains a lot
    "Our results indicate that even in the absence of manifest type 2 diabetes mellitus or impaired glucose tolerance, chronically higher blood glucose levels exert a negative influence on cognition, possibly mediated by structural changes in learning-relevant brain areas." http://www.neurology.org/content/ear...35561.00234.ee


    And that is a simple 5 second Google....Please feel free to post any real science that says sugar is good for you, because you won't....but good luck to you.
    PS
    Why do you come onto a primal forum and try and promote non-primal foods?????
    Last edited by Dirlot; 10-28-2013 at 10:32 PM.
    Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
    PS
    Don't forget to play!

  7. #187
    AMonkey's Avatar
    AMonkey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    771
    Higher glucose levels associated with lower memory and reduced hippocampal microstructure

    This particular article is talking about fasting glucose levels, it isn't about glucose consumption. It also seems that Hb1Ac was more strongly correlated than blood glucose.

    I have only skimmed the other articles but from what I've seen they all talk about associations i.e. epidemiological data and using these studies is inappropriate to make any nutritional conclusions. This is evident by the 20 years of nutritionists and the government damning dietary fat and cholesterol because of epidemiological date (which consistently shows that saturated fat is bad, meat/red meat is bad, salt is bad etc).

    @Neckhammer. Interesting article, nutritional science moves awfully slow though. Obviously the data I pulled up was all short term, I didn't come across anything that dealt with some long term biomarkers.
    http://lifemutt.blogspot.sg/ - Gaming, Food Reviews and Life in Singapore

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •