Once upon a time almonds were poisonous, but we found some unpoisonous mutated ones and, between us and other animals, managed to domesticate them.

Cute!!......

Amen. Just another lazily-written opinion piece on a blog. If he was serious about being an authority in nutrition, he'd have done a bit of research and quoted the sources of the so-called myths. "The idea rose in popularity after Dr Eades posted (such-and-such) to his blog back in 2007," or something to that effect. Instead, he criticizes a lack of scientific reference... and then goes on to provide nothing but conjecture.

ITA with your point. Low carb is relative to the person. I eat upwards of 100 carbs per day and have steadily lost weight over the last 4 months. But I also work out 6 days a week, strength train, coach volleyball and field hockey, and do intermittent fasting. Eating 20 carbs a day wouldn't fuel me past 10:00 am. I think folks have to look at their lifestyle, body type, age, and overall health to determine not only the best diet, but the right amount of carbs for them.

Eades is always fun to read, and I have learned a fair bit from him. But he does not have a good grasp of science in general.

Well, yeah, but you have to draw the line somewhere. It's not as clear-cut as pregnancy, but somewhere. And we're not dealing with mere descriptive English here, "low-carbohydrate diet" is at least a semi-technical term, relativism makes things a little mucky. Terms like "carbohydrate-controlled" or "moderate-carbohydrate" might help increase understanding during discussion.

I sort of like the term "nutritional ketosis" in that for people targeting actual ketosis, it sidesteps this whole issue. A nutritionally ketogenic diet is just whatever diet keeps that person in nutritional ketosis, no matter what that diet is.

Wonderful post!

Two sides to every story:
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t...-fruit-1a.shtml

Wild / Natural Fruit
Small, high in fiber, often sour, bitter, or even astringent; rarely sweet; usually low sugar level.
Modern / Cultivated Fruit
Large, low in fiber, usually very sweet with a very high sugar level.

There is probably the truth somewhere in between,

It is my observation that fruit is not available all year, and therefore we humans have never evolved eating fruit regularly.

Fruit ripens right before the starvation season. In temperate zones the starvation season is winter, and in the tropics, it's the dry season.

Ripening fruit before the starvation season allows the fruit eating animals to fatten themselves up. Those with the sweetest sweet tooth tastes got the fattest and were able to survive on those reserves, therefore passing those sweet loving genes to their offspring.

Parts of Africa have a wicked dry season, so the fruit there has to have more sugar. Plus DNA evidence shows that everybody but the native sub-saharan Africans have some Neanderthal genes in our DNA, so we have the European ape that never saw those African fruits in our genes.

Living in the tropics I've seen fruit ripening season for the native and many of the cultivars. So much fruit that you can't possible eat it all. Oranges, mangoes, star fruit, and so on rotting on the ground or packed into UPS boxes for relatives 'up north' because everybody has more than they can possible eat. A month later, there is none to be found, and will not return for another year.

And I've seen a documentary on apples, and the heritage, wild apples in Kazakhstan is now considered a "dwarf apple" comparing it to modern apples. And DNA studies have pointed the origin of apples to these 'dwarf apples' in Kazakhstan.

The corn found by the setters in North America was also much smaller and less sweet than what we eat today. What we eat today is a hybrid and increasingly a Genetically Modified Organism.

We've been 'improving' the size and taste of plants by selective breeding ever since we discovered agriculture.

So I think there is validity in both sides of the debate. And I also know that year-round access to fruit is something humans have not had until very recent times, a speck in our evolutionary clock.

Bob

However, it has raised a good conversation here.......

It is not to be taken as a scientific research paper, but, I think, as a frame of mind for general reference.

For instance, I used to think that if only I could get all my heavy freinds and aquantences on LC woes, that they would be "cured" until I did a ton of research and found out that is not true. Maybe his last few sentences will put the thought that this is not true, in the minds of those who still think that way

It all goes back to how we are meant to eat and how nature evolves us and what we were meant to do before we evolved.

We lost weight in the winter due to lack of food. Spring, those of us that had enough fat and could store food the best got to live and reproduce. Summer and fall is for us to fatten up, weather is good, plants and animals are in abundance and we eat and get nice and fat like my Thanksgiving turkey and my horses. Winter comes back and our bodies are fueled off those fat resurves.

But we have screwed with that plan that worked at one time. We don't have famines any more and we have access to sugar all year round and its pushed. Not just fuit,but grains, fruits, veggies, tubers, its all there all year round for us to eat at our will.

I have canned apple sauce, jams, onions, tomatoes, corn this summer and fall so we can have it through the year. We aren't meant to have those foods all year around and in abundance.

I'm kind of leaning the same way. For instance, I get HUNGRY LIKE BEAR this time of year, like no other. I can see how advantageous it would be to have the ability to fatten up when food is plentiful, and live off it when food is not.

And, like sexym2 says, how would that work when the "food is not plentiful" part never happens...

Then what do we do with the "Everyone is different" statement if we are all basically the same? The argument does have a pleasing feel to it.

Well, whatever the truth is to this on a metabolic level, there's also personal preference to consider.

It's possible that almost anybody stranded with the Kitivans, forced to eat their diet, would have good results from that diet and life-style. Or anybody dropped into a traditional Inuit village, forced to give that a go. In the real world, unless you're enthusiastic about what you're trying to do, results are likely to be sub-par.

If somebody can't restrict calories and lose weight--if it just makes them miserable and hungry and lethargic, we in the low carb community just say duh! Why should we be less sympathetic if a person is just as miserable reducing carbs?

From your provided link and reply:

"Wild/Natural Fruit: Small, high in fiber, often sour, bitter, or even astringent; rarely sweet; usually low sugar level."

The link I provided presents a pretty convincing demonstration this is a patently false "truth", using both current day examples as well as macro-nutrient analyses. You have not provided a link to information clearly showing wild/natural fruit is "small, high in fiber, often sour, bitter or even astringent; rarely sweet; usually low in sugar level." when compared to cultivated fruits. Rather, you've linked to one man's opinion/"truth" he based on—what?—a reference citing sweet oranges don't grow wild and are from sour oranges + regurgitation of current dogma. Okie dokie.

If you start with a false premise, kinda hard to find your way to a right one. As such, I don't have the time to parse the rest of some dude's dogmatic opinion. If you do find a page with relevant information demonstrating wild/natural fruit exhibiting the proposed traits on actual analysis, I'd love to see it so feel free to link to such.

Just saying there are two sides to the story. If you think the pre-agricultural apples were as big and sweet as a giant red delicious, go for it.

I've seen the difference in strawberries in my own life time. They are now at least 3 times as big as they were when I was a child.

And of you don't believe that we have produced cultivars that are much larger and sweeter than their ancestors, that's OK with me too.

I believe that modern cultivars of most fruit and vegetables have been selectively bred to have bigger and/or sweeter edible parts. That's what the science of agriculture is all about. You don't have to agree.

I also believe that in the pre-agricultural era (most of our history as humankind) the sweet and starchy foods ripened right before the starvation season and that allowed us to get fat, which was a survival benefit for the coming starvation season. You don't have to agree.

There is a ton of information out there, and we all choose to believe what we want to.

Some believe that a low carb diet is dangerous, and there is enough out there to confirm that. There is also enough to confirm that a LC diet is healthy.

How do we really know for sure?

We don't. Anyone can put up a web page to either prove or disprove just about anything they want.

I do know one thing for sure. I'm in my late 60s, on zero prescription drugs, trim (but not slim), all my blood work (including HDL and LDL) is in the recommended range, I don't get sick (one mild cold every 5 years or so), most people tell me I look much younger (including the nurse at my doc's office where I get my annual physical), and even my eye doctor tells me my retinas and therefore immune system are those of someone 20 years younger than myself.

I've been extremely Low Carb since 2000, and I don't hardly ever eat fruit, and when I do, it's small quantities of low glycemic fruit.

So it works for me.

But as previously noted, we are all different. Some people get along well on a different WOE.

Bob

True, the difference is the candy bar is healthier due to a lower GI from the fat it contains. Dr Oz, among others, have demonstrated that whole grain bread impacts blood sugar levels more than a Snickers Bar. That also goes for skim vs. whole milk BTW.Yeah, if you eat stuff like peanut butter, which incidentally is not a nut nor is it low-carb. No one can gain weight eating only butter and steak, although few could tolerate that diet for very long.

Modern fruit, (for the most part) is Nature's candy: http://lowcarbpavilion.com/fruit.htm

I think the problem is that 'sugar' is used to mean so many different things.

But they are wrong, fructose does not turn into sugar, aka blood sugar, aka glucose--which is why fructose does not directly elevate insulin levels. Fructose is converted by the liver into triglycerides, among other things. These triglycerides can accumulate in the liver, causing fatty liver disease, which leads to insulin resistance, which elevates insulin levels.

So, depending on who you believe in the sugar argument, and your daily dose of sugar (toxicity is dose dependent), the candy bar could be much worse for you.

Good point, that is likely why skim milk can have an higher GI/GL than soda pop.

Years ago I bought a book about the Glycemic Index Diet (I think it was called "The Glycemic Index Diet," strangely enough). There was a profuse thank-you for funding to the good people at Kelloggs Australia. One of the authors was the researcher Jenny-Brand Miller, who was involved in many of the studies establishing the glycemic index for various foods.

When David Jenkins started the ball rolling on glycemic index, I think his heart was in the right place. I'm not so sure about those who took the ball and ran with it. Take a look at this Glycemic Index Foundation page. All this stuff about glycemic index, and ice cream being better than potatoes, because the cream and sugar doesn't immediately spike my blood glucose if I eat one serving, and :cough: frosted flakes being healthier than corn flakes, because a fifty gram carbohydrate serving of frosted flakes has a glycemic index lower than fifty grams as corn flakes, is quite literally, as far as I'm concerned, a conspiracy against my health, and one I resent. WE HAVE BEEN HAD. Sorry for yelling, but that's what it is. Who cares if the glycemic index of french fries is lower than that of plain potato? I can eat like a quart of french fries. I don't even want a potato.

Jenny Brand Miller is also involved in the infamous Insulin Index study. People bring that up, say protein also raises insulin. So? We need to eat some protein, no matter what. Not so with carbohydrate. The question of how much protein is valid.

glycemic index foundation page

dang that site is almost comical.
I'll just eat sugar coated puffed wheat, that will help...

I remember Taubes saying that he spoke to her, and that she told him something along the lines of the protein spiking insulin also had to do with how fatty the meat was.




http://www.fathead-movie.com/index....th-gary-taubes/

I've lowered my protein intake to 60 or 70 grams lately. Still very low carb. Fat to appetite. I'm feeling better this way, have more energy and enthusiasm to work out.


I didn't think the message of that insulin index study was that clear--I think the take away message that makes the most sense is pretty much what Taubes walked away with, (except that once carbs are out of the way, you can then say the more fat, the less protein, the less the insulin response) but the study itself made much of the ratio of insulin to glucose response to a food--something that maybe makes sense with a carbohydrate-containing food, but hardly makes much sense when you're dealing with a food like beef or egg that you wouldn't expect to raise glucose much to begin with--so of course, with lean beef, you get a high index of insulin to glucose. How could you not expect that going in?

I guess what I'm saying in my muddled way is that this is possibly one more case of a researcher's data being more supportive of low carb than the researcher herself is.

If this is the study you are talking about, link , I think the purpose of the study ended up just being a one-off demonstration that glycimic index corresponded with insulin index. I think figure 3 is the point of the study. Sure they found other correlations but they kind of gave up trying to put together a larger correlation and blamed it on things they couldn't / didn't measure.

For others, low-carb can be downright detrimental.
This includes people who are physically active, especially athletes who do a lot of anaerobic work. These individuals need a lot more carbs than people who are sedentary.

I'd have to disagree with you on this one. Studies show it's just not true. Also, if you go check out some of the boards where people are *very* physically active (e.g. body builders forums), you'll find these people are deliberately doing *very* low carb. They don't lack energy, are not in ill health and are thriving. Even extremely active lifestyle does not equate to a need for carbs.

I do agree that low carb is not for everyone, but not because it's not healthy enough for everyone. Mainly because not everyone finds it palatable. The best WOE is the one you will stick with long-term.


For carbs to be “fattening,” they need to be refined and put into a package that is highly palatable and encourages overconsumption.

Again, based on my experience, I'd have to disagree. I was never a sweet eater or much of a junk food eater, but give me rice (preferably brown), beans, potatoes, all the various winter squashes and I was in heaven. I managed to gain a significant amount of weight *and* become a diabetic on the high carb, complex carbohydrate way of eating. We have to stop looking at 'other' cultures health from the narrow focus of their food choices. Their good health is more likely related to their genetics and life style in conjunction with their dietary habits. It may be a healthy way of eating for them, but that doesn't necessarily equate to it being a healthy WOE for everyone.

Low-carb can be anything up to 100-150 grams of carbs per day, perhaps even more.

That's an argument/debate waiting to happen. ;)
Yes it's 'lower' carb in that it is way below the 300+ that most people eat, but 'low carb'? Most of the 'gurus' of the low carb world put that number much lower...under 50. So, while I agree with some of what you're saying here, this is one 'myth' that I will keep promoting because I do not believe 100-150gm of carbs is low carb. It's 'lower' carb...but that's not the same thing.

I do agree that you do not have to be ketogenic for low carb to be effective or even to lose weight.


If our bodies take in more energy than we can burn off, we store it (usually as body fat). If our bodies expend more energy than we take in, we use stored body fat for energy.

This sounds like the old 'calories in/calories out' belief and we know that's just not true. There are sooo many other factors at work to explain why we gain or lose weight and it will vary by the individual. I do agree with you though that calories do count, but how much they count will vary on the individual as well. At 35, I could eat 3000 calories on Atkins and drop weight like nobody's business. Now, I average about 1350 calories a day with a carb count below 10gm and protein below 63gm and I'm 'maintaining'. I've discovered that if I increase my protein grams by even 10, I start to slowly gain. Same with carbs. I can hold my own at 25 gm or less, but above that and, *on the same calories*, I will start gaining.

One of the reasons low-carb diets work so well, is that they reduce appetite. They make people eat less calories automatically, so there is no need for calorie counting or portion control (12, 13).

Not my experience or the experience of people I know who have been low carbing for decades. If anything they tell me they're eating more and still losing or maintaining. Same with me. I gained weight on WW eating less calories than I do now.

In fact, there are many studies showing that fiber, especially soluble fiber, leads to various health benefits like weight loss and improved cholesterol (15, 16, 17).

Maybe. Again, I know people who have been low carbing and their diet lacks vegies (some almost completely). Their diet consists of fats and proteins and their labs are just fine.


Many people who are metabolically healthy can easily maintain good health eating carbs, as long as they eat real food.

This is such a blanket statement that I don't know where to begin so I'll refrain, but I disagree.


But even though removing most carbs may be necessary to reverse a disease, it does not mean that the carbs themselves caused the disease.

Again, I disagree. The carbs did cause my insulin resistance and diabetes and only the removal of those carbs reversed the insulin resistance and have allowed me to control my diabetes without medication. You might want to read "Wheat Belly" which makes a good case for carbs (in the form of wheat and grains) *causing* many medication conditions.

Good post Elfie......

There are people in the world that do exactly that, though. And some of them do it without focusing on real food.

I'm not advising that, I'm just saying it does happen.

i agree with elfies post. well said!

Where I'd disagree here--not with Elfie, but with the blogger--is in that, sick people come from somewhere--and I'm not sure we can predict who is going to get sick. Some people are healthy eating crap (I'm not specifying carbs, here, just crap in general) and smoking all their lives--that doesn't make it a good strategy to follow. I was one of those seems-to-be-healthy no matter what crap he eats type people until the ripe age of eleven years old.

And the population of healthy high-carbers gets smaller daily.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...es-spreads.html



Although probably people who eat high carbohydrate the way their grandparents ate high carbohydrate fare better than people who have added in large amounts of sugar, vegetable oil etc.

People thrive on a variety of diets, even unhealthy diets. Me, it has to be low carb and moderate protein, fats as needed. otherwise blood glucose and weight go up. What works for me is not what works for others.

In the end, there is a lot of conflicting information out there. From the food pyramid, to the vegans, to the low carb eaters, to the junk food junkies. Everybody says their way of eating is best.

Many websites are written with agendas, and are definitely slanted that way.

90% of the commercial media (TV, Radio, Newspapers, Magazines) are owned by 6 huge corporations. So anything they say is to benefit themselves and their advertisers, not for you. It's profit motivated, not health motivated. They don't care if you live or die as long as you buy their products or vote for their political party. And they will lie through the teeth at every opportunity to manipulate you.

The US FDA is run by the food and drug industries and are not a watchdog for our health, but for corporate profits.

Even scientists can be bought, I'm old enough to remember the ads with scientists and doctors endorsing smoking cigarettes because they relieve your tension.

So it all boils down to what we choose to believe. How many of us really know that low carb is the best diet as opposed to how many of us believe that low carb is the best diet for us?

I've read a lot of info from the PubMed.gov website (Library of Congress, National Institute of Health), to alternative magazines that push supplements, and in the past a couple of those "doctors' newsletters".

I choose to believe that extreme low carb WOE is best for me. I'm betting that extreme low carb will extend my healthy life span. That's right, I'm betting on it, it's a wager, an educated guess from all the propaganda I've read.

We have obesity, diabetes, and strokes in our family, and so far, I've avoided all of that. I'm the only person in the family under 200 lbs, and my parents were both 300. I tried other diets before LC, and this was the first one that worked. So I'm doing OK. I'm healthy, no prescriptions, and my annual blood work and physical are good. But who knows? Something caused by an extremely low carb diet might jump up and grab me any day. I could be wrong, the science I read could be wrong, because science progresses by "correcting" wrong previous "truths" with other "truths".

I've got my life wagered on very low carb. Wish me luck!!!

Bob