Here's where I (and most others here) disagree with him:



This was supposed to support your contention of:


In every study I posted (especially note the last), the lower the carb levels, the lower the loss of lean body mass which blatantly contradicts the quote above.
The protein levels were the same amoung all three groups in the last study and only the carbohydrate and fat levels differed.

I'd also like to point you back to the sticky at the top of the War Zone here in which you will find the following quote:



You may not believe or put much stock in medical studies, but we do and if you expect us to buy what you're selling, back it up with some credible studies, not unsupported opinion.

I'd also like to point out that you have a habit of diverting the discussion to another topic whenever you are challenged to back up your opinion with a study that supports it as in your contention above that brain function somehow suffers when the brain is running on mostly ketones as opposed to sugar. I challenged you to produce a study that supports that and instead, you diverted the topic into "your high fat diet is causing lean muscle mass loss". Hmm...lawyer tactics?

no, simply attempting to answer posts in chronological order. got diverted yesterday. if the brain ran as well on ketones, then glucose would not be its PREFERENTIAL fuel. the simple fact that you will not admit, because it kills your whole diet theory - textbooks all tell you that the brain runs on glucose. none of them talk about it running on ketones - pretty obvious conclusion.

who wants to prove that the brain runs on ketones ? the low-carb people. there is nothing to be gained financially from a study that supports what every physiology textbook supports. there is everything to be gained financially by the low-carbers, if they can prove that the brain runs as well on ketones. pretty much a no-brainer why there might be a lot more studies claiming to be on your side.

like i have said many times before, any topic that has financial implications, funny how there are so many studies on it. and when there is no financial gain involved, funny how there are little studies involved. CONCLUSION - the very fact that there are studies at all, are because there are finanical reasons. this is a part of life that you have not learned yet, or are willing to put blinders on, when it supports something that you are already gonna believe, one way or the other. but this is just human nature.

i trust text books, for the most part. i do not trust studies, for the most part. you show me a textbook that claims that the brain runs equally well on ketones - i did not say better - i would settle for equal. it ain't gonna happen. most of our bodies can run on fat, but not the brain, and the brain uses up a large percentage of the overall energy consumption. the overwhelming burden of proof is on you - and i am not talking about low-carb studies, which you seem to accept as gospel truth.

Another opinion piece... Give us facts, Gymee, not opinion. Please.

Rosebud

glucose can be burned faster. it is what the brain does best on, and what any sort of vigorous exercise does best on. fat seems to be able to support most of the rest of our energy needs, if need be. we never run out of fat, we have limited ability to store carbohydrate. so the logical reasoning here, is to make sure we get enough carbs each day. we can turn any excess calories into adipose fat tissue, extremely easily - this is how our body works, because we have evolved to store fat as our main future source of energy. if we eat excess carbs, the excess will turn into fat. if we eat excess fat, the excess fat stays as fat. we can get fat from carbs, but not carbs from fat. pretty obvious conclusion on which side of the fence you want to err on - much better to err on the side of too many carbs, than not enough carbs, assuming one is not diabetic, or have similar type problems, which presents an entirely different situation, when the body is no longer able to function as the average healthy body functions.

carbohydrates are not the demon for most people. the typical western diet has failed miserably on providing us with healthy bodies. a group of people decided to lower their carb intake to extreme levels, in some cases. many of them are feeling better, because they also made another INSIGNIFICANT change - they got rid of all the crap food that the western diet eats. somehow they forgot this, and placed all the blame on the little carbohydrate, that can provide tons of energy for them.

the real problem with the western diet is a lot more than the percentage of carbohydrates eaten, although that will be lowered, DUE TO THE INTRODUCTION OF MORE PROTEIN AND MORE ESSENTIAL FATS.

our western diet is composed of supermarket foods (if you want to call them food - i like the term manufactured foodstuff, to diffentiate from those foods that have evolved for millions of years right along with the planet and the other life forms that the planet maintains).

we need to look at our bodies like we do any other machine. our cars need oil in the oil tank, gas in the gas tank, water in the radiator, break fluid and other fluids in their reservoirs, for one simple reason - that is how the car was designed to run.

no differently with our body. the essential fatty acids actually hook right on to the different amino acids, that come from protein, to do most of our anabolic, or building functions. the brain and muscles during exercise run best on sugar, so at least intake enough sugar for these 2 functions.

you see, i am not giving you some prescribed percentages of the food groups. i am attempting to tell you how the body works, and which of these food groups are important for what, so that we can make sure we have enough of each, so we can perform all of our bodily functions OPTIMALLY.

this is logical reasoning, based upon the physiology of our body, as depicted in medical books, and textbooks, not studies supported by some group with financial motives. everyone can then decide for themselves.

So does cancer, as it prefers sugar to grow on.

Faster does not mean better.

Wa'il

tamarian,
faster does mean better, when we are exercising.

i have read about cancer, doing well in a sugar environment, and if i had cancer, i would really do some research on it. but cancer for the most part, is a disease brought on by our lifestyle.

most people do not know what cancer is. most people would be surprised to know that we all have cancerous cells in our body at all times. a cancerous cell is simply a cell whose division process is on at all times, thus dividing more often than what our healthy cells do.

our immune system keeps them in check, so that they can not mass together and cause a growth, i.e. cancer.

but limiting our sugar to prevent from getting cancer is akin to spiting our nose to save our face, or however that saying goes - LOL.

if we eat the foods that our bodies were designed to eat, then cancer would be a disease that is hardly ever mentioned.

I'm making a small revision to this list adding item #6.

Initially Gymeejet got mad why I started debating issues of body buidling since all his evidence was based on anaerobic exercise, and he said he doesn't buy that crap. Naturally, I'm used to him denying ever saying this or that,or eating this or that, or reading this or that, and often taking a full 180 degrees on his arguments.

So, with his new trend getting back into bodybuidling and misquoting their opinions, as textbook, I'll add number 6 below. Enjoy!

--

Nothing you quoted so far from textbooks resemble anything you have claimed.

To even argue there is some possible merit to your arguments, one will have to make too many assumptions:

1. Controlled carbs and low-carbs are exactly equal to zero carbs. And from there, anything that applies to starvation and fasting (from your textbooks) is equal to low-carbing. That's the only way your rants about catabolism, nh2 etc. can make any sense.

2. Vegetables are not good carbs. Eating vegetables without many fruits is equal to starvation.

3. Only high sugar laden foods, and high fructose fruits (as opposed to less sugary fruits like tomatos) are good carbs (i.e. matching your textbook claims on starvation/muscle catabolism, nh2 etc. without any carbs)

4. Biochemistry does not count. As your logic resembles that of the low-fat crowed, where cholesterol ingested=cholesterol clogs. While you say you don't follow low-fat, you use the same logic, that by only eating sugar, can one have sugar in there blood. That assumes all low-carbers are already dead

5. Your diet is over 100% percentage wise. You claim you eat ample protein, ample carbs and ample fat. The most you can do with this is 33%-33%-34% (isometric). But 33% is low-carb (similar to the Zone diet) by most nutritional standards recommending 60%-70% carbs. So where do the extra percentages come from? You're either isometric (low-carb) or low-something else. You can't claim to be all.

5. Humans, prior to transportation and refregeration did not live healthy. It is only now days that we can get fruits year round. It's only now that we have sugar in almost every kind of food in the supermarkets. Therefor, we are now healthier with such sugar overdose than our ancestors and hunter gatherer societies. This will also defy reality.

Now, with the abundance of year-round fruits and sugary foods all over the place, our society is healthier than ever, healthier than when sugar was only for occasional treats and fruits were only seasonal. That also defies the current reality.

6. Bodybuilding focuses on size, and explosive performance, not health The literature you find when looking at bodybuilding websites, does not focus on health. It has a single purpose, quick size bulking, or explosive athletic performance. Many of these sites will prescribe techniques on how to use drugs to accomplish certain tricks. And when they say this is the best fuel, [b]or preferred fuel[/b[, they essentially mean the fastest, not the healthiest. Needless to say, not everyone wants to be a bulky drug enduced hunk of muscles, or willing to go to these lengths.

The average person can be alot healthier doing normal exercise, and avoiding those sugar induced manipulation to body functions.

Wa'il

Just to clarify the usage of the term "preferred" when applied in biochemistry and science:

Body organs do not prefer things out of feelings, emotions, or a sense of right or wrong. i.e. you bodyr does not say to itself "self, I prfer to metabolize sugar, because I think it is healthy and nutritionists will give me a high five for that!" The body does not enter into such self conversations. I hope we all agree on that.

The term "prefer" here is just a mattery of ease. Like "cancer prefers sugar as a source for food", "fire prefers oxygen", or like, for people, "lazy people prefer to leave things to the last minute".

Wa'il

I encourage you to do some research before ever getting cancer. Your sugar tricks for exercise will damage your health, especially with your lifestyle. So the more you learn about it now, the better.

Wa'il

6. Bodybuilding focuses on size, and explosive performance, not health The literature you find when looking at bodybuilding websites, does not focus on health. It has a single purpose, quick size bulking, or explosive athletic performance. Many of these sites will prescribe techniques on how to use drugs to accomplish certain tricks. And when they say this is the best fuel, [b]or preferred fuel[/b[, they essentially mean the fastest, not the healthiest. Needless to say, not everyone wants to be a bulky drug enduced hunk of muscles, or willing to go to these lengths.

i guess that means you will lose all of you bodybuilding websites that support your low-carb lifestyle, as there are many.

That's bogus. Obviously you never read any textbook (except partial quotes) on biochemistry and nutrition, let alone all of them. You've already been caught with you pants down saying I misquoted a book, then later admitted you never readi it.

So how would you know no textbook ever said that?

Wa'il

Humm, will you lose your customers, who purchase flavoured juice drinks from you site? That was the only post we deleted of your, since we don't allow SPAM.

Wa'il

i killed your number 5 yesterday as being ridiculous, and the others are so ridiculous, that i will leave them up for the reader to figure that out.

The above link is supposed to show how carbs are protein sparing how? As a matter of fact, it seems to support our view that unless you are engaging in strenous, prolonged exercise on a regular basis (and very few people have the time to exercise several hours a day), too many carbs cause fat storage. It also brings up that glycemic index that you were disparaging many pages back.
You also completely ignored my post above regarding England's rugby team who took the championship while on a low carb regimen and trained using that same regimen, winning over teams who were carb loading. Can't perform athletically unless you're carb loading? Tell that to them!



What I find hysterical about this statement is that textbooks are based on studies, often very old ones by the time they make it into textbooks! They don't pull all that information out of thin air, gymee. In other words, often by the time the information can be compiled and a textbook published, the information contained within it is outdated.



Ah, the old "financial gain" argument. From a practical standpoint, there is much more financial gain to be had by proving that the bain functions less optimally on ketones than it does on glucose because the majority of the money making portion of the food industry is carb based (cheap to produce and can be sold at a high profit). They're losing business as more and more people are switching to eating proteins and produce (not terribly profitable). If they could prove what you contend, they'd do it in a heartbeat to convince people that they need their products and win back their market share....but they can't.



Yes...funny how several of the studies that we've quoted were funded by those who had an interest in proving that low carb was harmful (such as the AHA) and then failed to do so because the data the study provided showed just the opposite!



In truth, gymee, the brain prefers to run on whatever fuel is in greatest abundance at that particular moment, which for the average person is glucose. Textbooks don't go into ketones as a brain fuel because in the past 100 years or so, very few people have their bodies running on such an energy system. The body maintains a fairly steady blood glucose concentration of 80-100 mg. If the brain was sucking it all up to keep going when there was an alternate supply of energy available (ketones), we'd all be falling down unconscious from hypoglycemia since you've already made the contention that the body simply can't keep up with that type of demand through gluconeogenesis. I'm here to tell you after 3 years of living this way, it doesn't happen.