So why are you using them as proof that saturated fat clogs your arteries in low carb since the studies are based on just the opposite?




Even if I am (and I'm not), what motivation do all these scientists have to "see what they want to see"? Many of them are putting their careers on the line by bucking the current dogma of saturated fat and cholesterol = heart disease and blatantly disagreeing with it publically and in print.
So...we've shown that we're not deficient in essential fats and essential amino acids as well as getting plenty of antioxidants and phytochemicals from low GI plant foods. We've shown that each of us, for the most part, are getting as many carbs as we can handle daily and we've debunked the "too much saturated fat is gonna give you a heart attack" theory. Where's the argument now?

only in your mind have you debunked the fat-clogging artery theory. many, if not most, scientists still believe it. i already know that low-fat diets are not good, because you don't get anywhere near the amount of essential fats that you need. so showing me some study that purports that one of your low-carb diets is better, doesn't do a hoot for me.

you have some scientists on your side. there is still a whole society of people who believe that the world is flat. there will always be someone believing something. i think i said this before, but no matter what we are discussing, there will always be many current studies supporting the current SELLING FAD, such as the low-carb diet is now. the low-carbers are still in a big minority, but that still leaves many people and many dollars to capture. it is one thing to sell books, but when you start marketing your own food products for sale, you prostitute yourself, and are just asking for unbiased people to label you as such, which is what atkins was doing.

the shape and electrical properties of fat molecules has long since been established. we know that saturated fat easily clumps together. cis-polyunsaturated fats do not clump together. this is physiology, not some study supported and paid by whomever.

>>only in your mind have you debunked the fat-clogging artery theory.

At least you're acknowledging that it's only a THEORY. All of the "facts" gathered about this theory were derived from studies of people who eat a high amount of carbs *with* their saturated fat - it doesn't apply to people who aren't churning out too much insulin. The conclusions they drew *arbitrarily* pointed the finger at the burger, instead of the bun, fries and coke.

Having many, many scientists believe something doesn't make it true. The profound influence of drug companies on science doesn't make it true. Since you brought up the "flat earth" topic, remember that EVERYONE - even so-called experts - believed the earth was flat, until a few observant people dared to disagree.

I'll bring up another reason why I eat lots of saturated fat: I don't want to eat raw food the rest of my life. While olive, flax and other such oils are good for you, *oxidized* polyunsaturates are not. Saturated fat is the most stable to cook with.

>>"current SELLING FAD..."

Gee, so Atkins has been a 30 year fad? That book was written before I was born. And it was hardly the first. This is exactly how many of our ancestors ate. A hundred years ago, the typical diet was *loaded* with saturated fat: there was little else available. Lard and butter - that was about it. So if saturated fat is the bad guy, why was heart disease practically unheard of until recent generations - after processed sugar reigned supreme?

Jeez - you've been here since the middle of August. You're taking this discussion in circles. Before you make anymore statements, go back and read the whole thread and see where your point has already been addressed - or say something we haven't heard.

Well, looks like my stop... I am getting off the train...

and you are singling out the bun, and eating all the burgers you want - just as silly.

my advice is the proper one. understand what each of the nutrients do. eat the sugar that is needed to supply the brain and muscles. the protein should only be used for building/anabolism. this is its function. not to burn up and use as glucose. that is a safeguard. it was not meant as a standard practice. once again, i will continue to repeat my advice until it has logged into your brain - AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FATS, REMAINDER NATURAL CARBS.

one day, lisa will find that it was me who was "thinking outside the box". in fact, not only do i think that way, i "live outside the box".

30 years ago when i began my nutritional crusade, a doctor was required to take one course on nutrition. so i began my quest for real truth. i made some mistakes along the way, for sure - my biggest blunder was listening to all the STUDIES supporting the low-fat diet. but i have never been to a doctor for medical reasons. i have never taken an antibiotic in my life. i have great disdain for the medical community, on a whole. and i have results second to no one - for i am still a kid at 48. there is no study even close to as impressive as that. find me a bunch of low-carbers that can outdo me, and i will certainly listen to what they have been doing.

an unrelated example of "thinking outside the box". if i ever have a kid, that kid is not going to our horrible public school system. if i were to design a curriculum for elementary school children, they would spend several hours each day on 2 subjects - logic, and word-problem solving. these are 2 things that people are downright horrible at. yet it provides the basis for thinking. i don't care whether they know who the first president was, or any other such trivia that they may regurgitate. but they would have logical minds. they could first understand the problem, and have the logic to know the steps in fixing it. so instead of having brainwashed children regurgitating useless memorized trivial knowledge, they would instead be able to use their brains to actually THINK. along with that, they would study science every day, so that they understand how the world around them works. science can also be good to stimulate the "creative" part of the mind. some reading and spelling would be needed, but these kids would not grow up brainwashed, they could see through "when people are using them", and be almost impossible to defraud - which of course is not what the wealth/government wants, which is why our school system is the way it is. every government in every nation of the world wants its people brainwashed into its social way of thinking, so that they can be easily controlled. just look at our voting process. i stopped voting a long time ago, because people are basically stupid. they continue to vote in either republicans or democrats - these people are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the wealth of the country, the status quo. i do believe that there is at least a chance that schwarzenegger has honest intentions. and he would probably have gotten quite a few votes if he had run as an independent. but he probably felt he needed the republican party to actually get elected, so i am not sure just how many strings are attached to him, at this point.

Well, it's a good thing you live in a warm climate then!

Honestly guys, this arguement is just going around in circles. If we don't feed the argument, it may go away.

xo Dig

Funny thing is, low carb has been around since the 1800's (farther back if you count our hunter-gatherer ancestors). You might want to check out what William Banting had to write about the whole subject of low carb. As I mentioned before, low carb was the diet of choice to treat diabetics in the early to mid 1900's, so it's hardly something new and unheard of. It's just that now a few doctors who are willing to think outside the box and buck the system have found that it has practical applications for more than diabetics and that a high carb diet isn't healthy for anyone unless they are extremely active and not predisposed genetically to carbohydrate metabolism problems and yes, there are a few people out there who just happen to be genetically lucky and can tolerate a higher carb intake without negative impact. I think we all know one or two people who seem to be able to eat whatever they want and never seem to suffer any ill effects from it either with weight gain or health problems.
Regarding the selling of low carb foods...can that not also be applied to the plethera of low FAT products on the market today? Just because one particular doctor hasn't put their name on them are they not still big business and only there for the profit margins of the manufacturers while they cater to the current fat phobia of the world? I'd also like to point out that it isn't even necessary to purchase any special products to follow a low carb lifestyle and in fact, it's preferable to stay away from the processed stuff as much as possible. Those low carb products aren't there because they are necessary for a low carb lifestyle, but because a smart businessman recognized that the American public specifially was used to convenience. Sadly, we've become a nation of people who mostly eat their meals out of a bag, box, jar or restaurant. If the product doesn't enable you to get dinner on the table in 30 minutes or less, most people don't want it. There are also a lot more food producers jumping on the low carb bandwagon every day with corporations like Unilever coming out with low carb "convenience" products, not to mention Michelob and many others. There are currently more new low carb products hitting the shelves of our stores than new low fat ones, so while you may see this as a fad, enough people are following it to impact the bottom line of food producers and make them take note enough to start producing products for that segment of the population. Whether that's a good thing or not remains to be seen since while food producers are coming out with low carb products it seems that they have at the same time failed to grasp the concept of low carb and include things in their products that most of us avoid such as hydrogenated fats. There are very few, if any, processed products that can rival that which is unprocessed, unrefined and just as it was when it came out of the garden or field.




I have to agree with Kristine. It's time to either bring out something other than opinion or studies that don't apply to low carbing or get off the merry-go-round. Every objection you've raised so far has been addressed somewhere in this 30 page thread, usually with a relevant study, a couple of times over at least. It's more than obvious at this point that you wish to continue with what you've chosen and so do we and neither of us is about to change the other's mind. I wish you continued vitality and sincerely hope that what you've chosen continues to work for you. But if for some reason it doesn't, at least you've gotten a good education in what low carb is all about.
Ciao!

Well, I'm off this wagon too. Gymee could have gained more credance with me if he'd have stayed with "ample protein, fats, remainder natural carbs", since. to some degree, thats what low carbers do.

But nutritional crusade?? To push powders over meat? Or paint-stock oils over saturated fats? Well, you lost with me with that one.

No thanks, I'll stick with my studies and experience (after all, I have RESULTS, RESULTS...), and eat my real meat, my real diary...

Just have to point out one more thing. Protein in low carb is largely not used for gluconeogenesis. FAT provides the majority of the energy the body needs through the production of ketone bodies that the majority of the cells of the body are completely content (and some actually prefer) to run on as I've said before. Gluconeogenesis through protein breakdown occurs in the body even when you are not following a low carb lifestyle unless, of course, you make a habit of getting up sometime during the night to eat and prevent your body from going into a fasting state between dinner and breakfast. The body also converts protein to glucose during the day between meals or whenever blood sugar dips and there are no carbs coming in.

As for what causes blood to get thick and "sticky", triglycerides are the culprit there. http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/111396/bloodmay.htm

Definition of triglyceride:
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/triglyceride

this is just a plain silly comment. never have i pushed powders over meat on this thread. i keep mentioning grams of protein, ample amounts of protein. if you want to post, fine. if you don't, fine. please don't lie about what i am saying. my nutritional crusade is about ample protein, ample essential fats, and remainder good carbs.

the fact that the paint industry uses oils for their products, and comparing them to the oils to which i am referring, is also just another big lie. it shows me that you have nothing to really combat my logic with. the pain industry takes good polyunsaturated oils, and processes them, and degrades them in the process. the oils to which i refer, are the omega6 and omega3 oils in their natural state, before any damage has been done to them. these are the only fats necessary for the body, which is why they call them "essential fats". our bodies have not developed the enzymes to make them. there is probably some animal species that can. i know that us and the guinea pigs are a few of the animals that can not make vitamin c - most animals can.

lisa,
once again, you are comparing low-carb with low-fat. sure, i agree with you about the low-fat products out there on the market. you think you have addressed my points with studies. while in fact, you have not. nowhere has your low-carb diet been pitten against my AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FAT, REMAINDER GOOD CARB DIET. your lc diet has been compared to the lf diet, and the sad diet. but never to my superior diet, again with the exception of sugar-inpaired individuals who can no longer process sugars.

one of your previous posts to which i will respond to soon, once again displays this fact, and in my opinion, is why your studies are always completely wrong when attempting to predict my results - simply because they have never competed against my diet, from which they would surely be the loser, in terms of OPTIMICITY (my new word - LOL).

lisa,
i have gals in middle school who flirt with me, and give me that type of attention. and i did say middle school. now that is partly because i have a fairly young look. partly because i have a babyish, non-threatening look. and probably mostly because of the energy that i display in the activities that i do, are exclusively connected to "being a kid".

many people of my chronological age are beginning to look a generation older than me - never more noticeable than when i go to high school reunion activities. so just when is it that i am supposed to start looking older than most people my age ?

according to all your studies, i should have diabetes by this time, with all the carbs i eat, and i should be walking with a cane, and looking older than my peers. but in reality, just the opposite is true. why is it that your low-carb studies are not even in the ballpark when describing me ? could it possible be that those studies never compare the diet that i am on ? no large group of people are eating that. you have the sad diet, filled with tons of junk. you have the lf diet, which is also typically low in protein. you have the lc diet. all these diets at least have groups of people. nowhere is there a group of people following my diet. and i am the only one i know of who can run around like a kid at 48. so just whose claims are more substantial ? you guys are "outside the box". but i am even further outside, that not even you guys are aware of it. but you will be 20 years from now, when it is proven that my AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FAT, REMAINDER GOOD CARB DIET is the ideal optimum.

as far as fat-clogging being a theory - saturated fat is highly sticky. it takes no brains to understand that these fat molecules will stick together. so in my mind, the only question is how much in your blood stream is dangerous ? that is gonna depend to a fairly large degree on activity level, which is one of the main reasons why i do very intense cardio. think about a river. when it is flowing fast, it is very hard for anything to get a toehold for very long. the gushing water keeps knocking everything loose. but at some point, the sludge is gonna get too dense for the flow, such that things will be able to get imbedded, and start blocking the normal flow of blood, and its nutrients.

i am not sure you understand what triglycerides are. some people think of them as a type of fat - like there is cholesterol, essential fatty acids, stearic fatty acid, etc. this is not so. a triglyceride is simply a glycerol molecule, attached to 3 fatty acids. most all of our fat is like this. and most, if not all, of our ingested fat, is in the form of triglycerides. but this tells us next to nothing. what is important is what the 3 fatty acids are. are they all saturated ? are they all essential ? what ? so when you see your triglyceride count on your regular blood test, it is not all that indicative. what you really want to know is the breakdown - the fatty acid panel to which i have been referring. the triglyceride count is just the total of all the fatty acids in our blood stream, divided by 3.

lisa,
the fact that no protein is coming in, does not mean that the body is converting protein to glucose. if you are eating balanced, this does not happen. if i recall correctly, 10% of the weight of the liver is glycogen. this glycogen keeps the blood glucose up, as well as feeding the brain. the brain by far and away, uses more glucose than any other part of the body. if i recall correctly, it uses 1/3 of the total glucose, while the immensely much more muscle mass, uses 2/3 of the total glucose. but pound for pound, the brain uses far more than muscle tissue.

the body is not gonna break down protein, until and unless the sugar levels get too low.

body builders are extremely conscious about this. i forget the term, but it has something to do with nitrogen, in terms of whether they are catabolizing it or not.

there are no saturated fats that are essential to the body. the only 2 polyunsaturated fats that are essential are omega6 and omega3 fats, and the various fats along those metabolic pathways. most of the rest of the polyunsaturated fats that are in our body are trans-fats.

the reason why trans fats are unhealthy, is not because they are toxic, but rather, if they build up to large enough numbers, the body is fooled into using them as substitutes for the essential fats, but they are not able to perform the functions that the essentials do.

in small amounts, the body has protective measures that allow it to catabolize them for energy, just as it does with saturated fat.

Are you out of breath? Hail to the world's largest soap box.