Do you guys ever doubt low carb?
(94 posts) (37 voices)-
Pikaia
MemberWho doesn't think sugar is bad? I think sugar (sucrose, HFCS, etc.) is the #1 enemy, no fat required. Robert Lustig's talk explains some of the reasons.
Sugar: The Bitter Truth
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717Magnetic attraction? Um, lol.
Posted 3 months ago # -
bobbylight
BlockedSugar is bad only in high amounts (which most people in the west eat). That goes for fructose. Eating plenty of fruit has been shown to be beneficial. Fructose isn't bad, just eating (or drinking) a lot of it is bad. It all depends on the person, their ability to deal with the sugar properly, and their activity level.
And Pikia, I have to say that those studies have not shown me to doubt low carb, but just shunning one whole macronutrient doesn't seem right in my mind.
Posted 3 months ago # -
MariaNYC
MemberAtherosclerosis develops from low-density lipoprotein molecules (LDL) becoming oxidized (ldl-ox) by free radicals, particularly oxygen free radicals (ROS). Blood in arteries contains plenty of oxygen and is where atherosclerosis develops. Blood in veins contains little oxygen where atherosclerosis rarely develops. When oxidized LDL comes in contact with an artery wall, a series of reactions occur to repair the damage to the artery wall caused by oxidized LDL.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Atherosclerosis
Causes are high carbohydrate and trans fat consumption.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Pikaia
Member"The plaque in your arteries probably isn't fat or sugar, but fat or sugar could cause it."
Bobby, how can you say you watched Lustig's talk or read Taubes' column if you're still saying that fat causes arterial plaque?
Here's another abstract for you. (Why I bother, I'm not sure.)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995?dopt=Abstract
In this study, the authors looked at all the well-designed studies they could find on diet and heart disease. They were looking for factors that were either protective against heart disease, or possible contributors to heart disease. They found NO LINK between total fat intake or saturated fat intake and heart disease.
Posted 3 months ago # -
SerialSinner
MemberMaria on oxidized LDL at Stephan's blog:
http://tinyurl.com/yencvm5
http://tinyurl.com/mg6xtmPosted 3 months ago # -
Pikaia
Member"And Pikia, I have to say that those studies have not shown me to doubt low carb, but just shunning one whole macronutrient doesn't seem right in my mind."
Who is shunning a whole macronutrient? Go take that complaint elsewhere, because PB is not a VLC or ZC approach, and this is not a VLC or ZC forum.
Paleo/PB is about eating "that" macronutrient in reasonable amounts (100-150g/day maintenance), in natural forms (veggies and fruits).
There is no shunning of carbohydrates involved, unless you are referring to those that have huge impact on blood sugar. And pretty much everyone, regardless of how they feel about low-carb diets, agrees that large swings in blood sugar are not healthy in the short or long term.
"Fructose isn't bad, just eating (or drinking) a lot of it is bad."
Actually, I strongly disagree with you on this point. I'll go with Lustig on this one. Fructose IS bad, but the benefits of the whole fruit package may outweigh the risks, as long as fruit consumption is moderate. Remember the question he asked? What do you call something that only the liver can metabolize? We call that a toxin.
Posted 3 months ago # -
bobbylight
Blocked"Bobby, re-read. I said nothing about fruit. I was referring to concentrated sweeteners such as sucrose and HFCS. "
I realize that you didn't say anything about fruit. But, fruit is full of sugar, but they are good for you. So, I was just saying sugar is not always bad for you.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Vick
MemberBobby at this point you are not going to be convinced despite the evidence.
Sugar is bad. There are good things in fruit but based on one's insulin resistance levels choices have to be made.
If you had really watched the video on books you would have heard the author stated Aitkens participants "morphed" into a more Paleo diet. When it came to blood numbers this diet beat the others hands down. Those blood numbers are key to long term health.
Grains also screw up your omega 3 to omega 6 ratio. Long term this will increase the odds you will get chronic diseases such as diabetes 2, arthritis, heart disease etc.
Of the 26 necessary nuitrients (items the body needs because it can't manufacture them), grains do not provide or grains aren't an efficient way to provide them.
That being said... eat all you want. We've tried to help.
Posted 3 months ago # -
bobbylight
BlockedPikaia, I have linked that study so many times. Anyway, I have watched sugar: the bitter truth. I find it informative but extreme. As for Taubes' book, I have not read it but I have read it is also an extreme view.
Here is Lyle Mcdonald's view on Taubes' book.
"I can summarize Taube's book pretty briefly: it's comlpete crap.
Taubes takes the studies he wants and ignores the ones that contradict him, alik all of the idiots who argue for a metabolic advantage to low carb diets
he bases his simplistic model of fat storage that only includes insulin, a model that hasn't been right for about 15 years.
you can get shredded on a high-carb diet and you can get fat on a zero carb diet. The inuit don't have any problem being fat and they eat very low carbs traditionally
Basically he's looking at studies using self-reported food intake (always wrong) to justify the idea that you can magically lose weight on a lowcarb diet at the same or higher calories. except that NO controlled calorie study has ever supported that idea. And no study has ever shown a metabolic advantage when such things as BMR or TEF are acutally measured.
it's just the same lowcarb bullshit that has refused to die since the days of Atkins"
Posted 3 months ago # -
Pikaia
MemberBobby, don't tell me what you heard from someone else about Taubes. Do your own reading and thinking.
I challenge you to read Taubes book, the whole darn thing. Then go to your college library and read the papers he uses to support his arguments. If you don't understand them, ask for help. Then maybe you'll know enough to decide whether or not he's extreme.
Please explain EXACTLY what is extreme about Lustig's views. And I don't mean "Well, I just think it is so different from what everyone else has told me that it must be some kind of fringe hypothesis." What is it that he says that is extreme?
Posted 3 months ago # -
MariaNYC
MemberHow is doing a historical and thorough review of scientific studies an extreme view? Seriously, just read the book. I found out about GCBC from probably the smartest person I know (a PhD senior research scientist with over 40 years professional experience), when I inquired how he was able to slim down his bulging middle (and as I found out, lower blood sugar and cholesterol).
@Bobby, if you are in fact a reasonable person, there is just no way that your opinions won't change after reading the book. I second Pikaia's challenge.Posted 3 months ago # -
bobbylight
BlockedLustwig's views are extreme because small amounts of fructose can be healthy for you. Fruit would be very unhealthy if fructose was really poison. This obviously isn't true. He touches on the subject, saying that fiber is the antidote to fructose, but he doesn't go much further into it than that.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Vick
MemberHere's another test study to take a boo at.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051116090318.htm
Posted 3 months ago # -
Pikaia
MemberYour argument:
1. Fruit is healthy.
2. Fruit contains fructose.
3. If fruit is healthy and fruit contains fructose, then fructose must also be healthy.Better add a logic course to your studies, because that is not a logical argument. It is flawed.
Did you know that almonds have small amounts of cyanide in them? That is a poison. Almonds may be healthy, but you can not use the healthfulness of almonds to defend cyanide. I could go on and on with examples, because they abound in the food world, especially in plants.
Fructose is NOT healthy, and that is NOT an extreme view. That is just biochemistry, specifically hepatocellular biochemistry. If you didn't get that out of the talk, then you didn't really understand it at all.
Fruit may be healthy because it provides fiber and micronutrients and because it does not overwhelm the liver with its relatively small fructose load. But fruit is not healthy by virtue of its fructose. And the presence of fructose in an otherwise healthy food does not make fructose healthy.
Fructose isn't healthy. It is the price you pay for the fiber and micronutrients in your fruit.
(post edited for clarity!)
Posted 3 months ago # -
twa2w
MemberI have read Gary Taubes book GCBC and while I don't 100% agree with Lyle MMcD I do know that Taubes admits he ignores studies that refute his premise, and many of the studies he quotes are not well done. In fact I did go through his reference material. In one instance I looked at 12 of his references pertaining to a certain item. 11 of the references all referrred to a study done many years ago that was largely discredited years ago. So in essence on this point he had one study that was discredited to prove his point, not hte 12 most people would think.
more laterPosted 3 months ago # -
Pikaia
Membertwa2w, could you give the specific example? I am interested in the context. Since scientific research builds off of previous research, often one needs to look at the citation trail to see the real impact of one faulty study.
Edited to add: A relevant example is Ancel Keys' flawed and selective data analysis re: saturated fat and heart disease. That's only one example of very poor scholarship, but look where it got us.
Posted 3 months ago # -
twa2w
Member''Edited to add: A relevant example is Ancel Keys' flawed and selective data analysis re: saturated fat and heart disease. That's only one example of very poor scholarship, but look where it got us. ''
Actually that is the perfect example of why Taubes book is so misleading. He never read Ancel Keyes study to find out why he picked the countries he did. He implies or outright states that Ancel data mined to find countries that met his criteria. If he had read Ancels notes he would know this was not true. The countries were picked proir to reviewing the data on fat and they were selected for sound scientific reasons(of the standards at the time).
Whether Ancel reached the right conclusion is another matter but Taubes was way off base on the way he attacked this study. Taubes may or may not be right in his book but he has admitted numerous times, publicly, that his arguemnts ignore any contary evidence and he wrote the book not to seek the truth (good science) but to promote a point of view (perhaps good journalism). I frankly don't have time or the interest to go back through his book and point out all examples or poor research - its been done enough by better qualified people than myself.Posted 3 months ago # -
Pikaia
MemberFructose breaks down into glucose? LOL. Either you're crossing your fingers and hoping you're right, or you're hoping that I don't know much biochemistry.
Here's a diagram of fructose metabolism. Please point out to me where fructose turns into glucose, because I can't find it.
http://www.level1diet.com/images/hepatic_fructose_metabolism_400x391.gif
Glucose is not fructose. It doesn't act like glucose, and it sure doesn't turn into glucose.
As an aside, and just to prove that biochemistry is confusing, it is possible for glucose to eventually end up as fructose-6-phosphate. But don't get your hopes up; dietary fructose doesn't ever become F6P. And despite the similarity of names, the biological effect of F6P is not the same as that of fructose.
Posted 3 months ago # -
bobbylight
BlockedI don't know much about bio chemistry...well I don't really know anything about it. But I do know that it is generally accepted by people that know what they are talking about that fructose adds to the glycogen in the liver. I don't know how or why, but that is what knowledgeable people have said.
Edit:
Some studies:
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/5/489
Glucose was found to be superior to fructose in rebuilding the liver glycogen stores during the early stages, i.e., the first hour, of recovery after exhausting fatigue, the difference being statistically significant. Fructose approaches glucose in activity in the liver in the second hour, and in the third hour is much more effective than glucose. In muscle the average results for new glycogen formation indicate a greater effectiveness for glucose, especially in the first 2 hours, but the difference between the two sugars is not statistically significant at any time.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Pikaia
MemberBobby, you just quoted a study from 1941. I've also seen old texts that suggest fructose is transformed into glucose in the liver, but my understanding is that is no longer considered accurate. Maybe the sources you're reading this from haven't kept up with the elucidation of fructose metabolism.
Fructose does, however, help increase the rate of absorption of glucose from the gut. If the glucose transporters are saturated, you're moving the glucose in as fast as you can. If you add in some fructose, you'll slightly increase your glucose transport, because you'll be able to use a fructose-glucose co-transporter in addition to your glucose transporters. This is only beneficial in a truly extreme situation though, such as after running a marathon. For that reason it can't help us decide whether or not to consume fructose as a part of our normal diets.
Posted 3 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.