Wow so much info! LoL

suechef, I agree with your take on the book. I'm going to hunt it down and read it.

One of the reasons 'low carb' has started to ring true to me is my father's diabetes. I don't remember the exact mechanics, but I remember my father losing a TON of weight when his diabetes geared up. And it was explained, if I remember it at all correctly, that his body was no longer able to process the glucose (since he had no insulin) and his body was turning to fat.

So...doesn't it seem (if that's the case) that if you deprive your body of the regular amount of glucose, it will have to turn to fat?

Sue,

The studies I was referring to regarding weight loss and calories matter more than type of diet were with people of similar characteristics (age, weight, medical history, etc) that lost the same amount no matter low carb/high carb. That of course doesn't address why some people are skinny vs some people being fat. That does have to do a lot with hormones, genetics, environment, etc.

Again, personally as someone who has had over 200 lbs to lose and is getting closer, I can say I've been able to play around a lot with my diet. That is what shapes my own personal opinion and I do recommend that people find what works best for them.

My summary is the following though

High carb, processed foods (even healthier processed foods) does not work with me. My insulin "issues" (PCOS, hypoglycemia) are more prevalent if I eat a processed, high carb diet.

Low carb, regardless of food works for me in the weight loss arena, although it leaves me yearning for a diet that focuses on more whole foods.

Moderate carb, moderate fat, whole foods works for me but it is tough because I find myself going over my limit in calories.

High carb, low fat, whole foods works for me and I don't find myself going over my limit in calories. Amazingly, it is what makes me feel better out of all the 4 types of diet permutations I list. Also, amazingly, my insulin "issues" aren't an issue with this dietary guideline.

I think stuff like this are generally debatable. I've never really cared about the diet that comes as "most healthy" because that all differs in opinion, but concentrated on the diet that "works best for me". Yeah, I have saturated fats in my diet but hey, it works for me. Can't please everybody and everything...

Veggielover, if it makes you feel any better the whole first section of the book has a lot about fats & heart disease, which is where a lot of the current converitional wisdom about dieting comes from and where the low fat thing really started, and he looks at the studies about fats and finds the science was very poor and that they know that sat fats are not in fact the devil.

Also, like I sort of said but not very clearly, his interest is largely in scientific methodology (and not weight loss per se), and, having read this, now when I hear anyone say "studies have shown" my immediate response is, which studies? I want details! Because so many studies have been poorly controlled or interpreted in ways that are simply "wishful science" as one scientist in the book calls it. In good science you start with a hypothesis and then try to disprove it - in bad science, you have your hypothesis, try to prove it, and if the study doens't back up your preconceived notion you either ignore it or scramble to find ways to explain that while this study didn't work, the hypothesis is still right. It would appear that the history of diet/nutrition science is riddled with this sort of thing.

cheerio,
Sue

Hey Altari! Gosh, all this and you still have to find out what works for you! :lol:

But it's a really good discussion! I'm enjoying this thread.

Regarding glucose--the way I've heard it, the brain has to have glucose and only glucose--nothing else will do. So, the body has metabolic pathways--recipes, if you will--to take any nutrient, whether protein, fat, or carb, and turn it into glucose if needed.

With regard to muscle, if you are exercising vigorously, muscles first burn glucose from the blood, then glycogen, an energy storage molecule found in muscles, and then when that's gone, fats. In fact, muscle tissue is about the only tissue that can burn fat directly.

With too few calories, as in a diet, the body burns glycogen stores, proteins, and fats. Eating adequate protein helps prevent muscle wasting because the protein is used instead of the muscle, to some extent. Exercise also helps prevent muscle wasting by keeping the muscles in use. Ideally, more fat is then used for energy than protein. Fat is a really high energy substance, which is why bodies use it for energy storage.

freiamaya, Susan Powter always struck me as a bit off... Wow, 20 pounds gained while eating 1800 cals of pasta... :fr:

nelie, one assumption in some of those studies is that everyone's metabolism is the same--and I question that. I have no reason to believe that a Chinese person's metabolism works the same as mine--being of northern European ancestry. My ancestors were eating reindeer and cold-water fish for thousands of years--while the Chinese were eating rice and soybean products. I think this may be why I have never done well on a vegetarian diet. Give me too many carbs, whether refined or not, and I balloon up!

Jay

You know Sue, I read that somewhere else too but I have so many people giving me the no-no finger, its absurd. Oddly enough, I don't feel the need to ever supplement debates with my friends with anything that starts with "studies show" because studies often cancel one another out, back and forth through time. That, and, having actually researched in a lab, I know some stats are highly flawed for reasons unknown to me. Haven taken statistics, I suspect that scientists also purposely choose the best mathematical functions that better strengthen their hypotheses....

:?: So where does this leave me? Back at square one.:D

Originally Posted by veggielover:
.........

:?: So where does this leave me? Back at square one.:D

Well VEGGIE look at the bright side...you are no longer going in circles ;)

No, not back at square one. I guess what I'm taking from this is that different people metabolize what they eat differently (surprise!), and therefore you just need to experiment until you find out what works for you.

But one point, which I'm still trying to understand the workings of, is that if you feel hungry it's because you ARE hungry - if you are not using the stored fuel in your body in a "normal" way - if your body can't access that fuel efficiently enough to make the rest of the cells in your body happy (regardless of your weight) - then your cells tell you you are hungry and you need to supplement what your body is actually metabolizing for daily use. If your cells aren't getting enough you compensate one of two ways: eating more, or doing less.

Fun factoid: ground squirrels, which fatten up at the end of the summer for their long food-less winter, will fatten up just as much in a lab (at the same time of year) with no extra food!! So, it has to be that they are metabolizing the calories differently at that time of year.

Golly, it's all so complicated.

cheerio,
Sue

Obviously, as everyone has stated, different things work for different people. All I can say is my own experience, and here it is:

When I let go of trying to figure out WHAT to eat and started focusing on HOW MUCH I was eating, I lost 115 pounds. Do I eat the healthiest diet in the world? No. Am I far healthier than I was 115 pounds ago? Of course. I don't track my carbs, fat, or protein -- I track my calories. If I hadn't made it simple like that, and told myself that I could eat whatever I wanted as long as it fit in my calories, I wouldn't have lasted more than a day or two. Believe me, I tried the low carb thing (I tried EVERYthing before this). Counting calories and calories alone is the only thing I will stick to. That's more about my mind than my body, I suppose. Regardless, it's working. I do try to make healthy choices most of the time, but if you tell me to give up sugar I'll simply laugh at you. :lol:

On a sort of related note, I haven't actually read much about Atkins, so I was just at their website. I was surprised at how much emphasis there is on veggies, vitamins (from food), fiber, some fruits, healthy oils - I've always heard people describe it as just slabs and slabs of fatty meat - but that's not what I'm seeing on the site at all! Just goes to show you have to read it for yourself.

cheerio,
Sue

It was the MOST DEPRESSING thing ever -- GAINING weight on a calorie restricted diet! And I thought, I really really thought, that her diet would be the answer for me, because to eat nothing but pasta and carbs was my absolute ideal. I LOVE them. It was a sad day when I recognized that a higher protein quotient in my diet was going to work for me.
Something else that really stuck in my mind was the following:
If the calorie in/out equation was all that mattered, how did thousands of WWI POWs survive for YEARS on 500 calories a day or less while doing daily hard labor for 8-10 hours? I'm NOT saying that they weren't malnourished. I'm NOT saying that they didn't lose weight. What I AM saying is that mathematically, if calories IN and calories OUT are SO far out of whack, no one should have survived for more than a month! Which brings us to the debatable topic (in some venues) of the concept of STARVATION MODE. Your body will adjust for a period of time (for some, longer periods than for others) to a severe restriction in calories. Which makes absolutely NO sense mathematically IF calories IN MUST equal calories OUT in order to maintain the human body.
SO, if we can accept that the body can act in ways contrary to what we believe to be true logically and mathematically, can one also give credence to the theory that the body metabolizes carbohydrates differently than it does proteins and fat? In other words, is a calorie REALLY a calorie, metabollically speaking???
I LOVE this thread -- so much great discussion!
Maya
:)

Originally Posted by JayEll:
nelie, one assumption in some of those studies is that everyone's metabolism is the same--and I question that. I have no reason to believe that a Chinese person's metabolism works the same as mine--being of northern European ancestry. My ancestors were eating reindeer and cold-water fish for thousands of years--while the Chinese were eating rice and soybean products. I think this may be why I have never done well on a vegetarian diet. Give me too many carbs, whether refined or not, and I balloon up!

What I got from the China Study and why it was done was why cancer rates and heart disease are so low among certain parts of China while other parts of China have higher rates. The study was interesting because it studied cancer rates and heart disease rates among people of similar ancestry. The results from that study (and others as well) were that areas which ate minimal animal protein had extremely low rates of cancer and heart disease while other areas that ate more animal protein had significantly higher rates of cancer and heart disease. Also, the book references studies of cancer and heart disease rates among those that have moved to western nations and shown that the cancer and heart disease rates become similar to those of the area they live in after the first generation. So it is to say that sure Japanese/Chinese/other asian people seem healthy if eating their natural diet but once they move to countries with high rates of heart disease and cancer, after the first generation, where they seem to adopt the lifestyle/food, they also have high rates of heart disease and cancer. Anyway, that is a short summary of a long book with lots of references. Obesity is actually an afterthought but it is true that the increase in animal protein also seems to not only cause higher rates of cancer and heart disease but also obesity.

Anyway, the China Study and the other book I read "Eat to Live" (which also talks about health among those who minimize animal protein) really struck home with me in that I should be eating mostly whole foods and animal protein really doesn't do much for me so why eat it? Of course that is my own conclusion and I do think everyone has to find out what is right for them.

I also admit even though I eat a high carb diet, I do minimize the starchy carbs. I think they do provide some nutrients but they are a bit more calorie dense so I rather eat other veggies. On Thanksgiving was the first time I had bread and the first time I had potatoes in well over a month and amazingly, I was down a pound the day after Thanksgiving. It is amazing since I have always thought of myself as carb sensitive, it is a bit surreal to be eating a high carb diet.

re. the China study and how adopting a western diet increases heart disease, etc, the same holds true for cultures which exist almost exclusively on meat & dairy - Inuit, Maasai, and several others. So yes, it's something about the western diet, but it's not necessarily more meat. Note, explorers and scientists who lived among the people of the north ate the same food they did - mostly seal meat - and reported being in excellent health. I hardly eat any meat so I'm not promoting a carnivorous lifestyle, just find it interesting that the meatless Chinese story & the meaty stories of others have the same unhappy ending when they start eating western diets.
cheers,
Sue

Pizza is the kiss of death. :eek:

Jay

I really think everything in moderation is key. Sue there is also this I found quite a while ago:

Nutrition for Longevity

It is about how the Azerbaijan's live to be over 100 years old. It tells what they eat, alot of dairy products and the other foods they eat with it to help break up the fat etc.

I think the #1 problem of America is all the fast food and processed food.