PDA

View Full Version : The Atkins diet - Possible Health Risk - Is really this diet safe?



HFWorld
03-17-2006, 06:08 AM
Is really this diet safe ?

People which are following Atkins diet eat large amounts of protein and fat.

Doctors from New York University wrote in The Lancet journal of a 40-year-old woman who developed a dangerous condition called ketoacidosis, a dangerous buildup of acids called ketones in the blood which can lead to patients falling into a coma.

Ketones are produced in the liver when insulin levels fall due to starvation or diabetes.

"Our patient had an underlying ketosis caused by the Atkins diet ..."

Read the entire article: here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060317/ap_on_he_me/diet_atkins;_ylt=Ag140F1Z8TtZAJk.K7uLp3IR.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3czJjNGZoBHNlYwM3NTE)

drew
03-17-2006, 07:14 AM
I highly doubt she was on the Atkins diet. More likely she was on the ******kins diet. People think that Atkins is just eating pounds and pounds of bacon and cheese and no carbs whatsoever. I would venture to say this woman never read the book at all.

(I'm not saying I'm a fan of the Atkins diet, but it's not as bad as people think it is. The effect it's had on society in general is the problem.)

atreyuballa87
03-17-2006, 08:09 AM
i tried that diet a couple of years back. in two weeks, i managed to lose 20 pounds. it was tough though because you are very restricted on what you can eat, and im not a big fan of salads. however, after those two weeks i felt 20lbs was enough and went back to normal, and within 1-2 weeks i was back to my original weight. a couple of months later i just started watching what i eat, like cutting out sugar filled junk foods and adjusted my portion size. i lost 50lbs doing this within a years time and it has stayed off.

TheGimp
03-17-2006, 08:32 AM
I highly doubt she was on the Atkins diet. More likely she was on the ******kins diet. People think that Atkins is just eating pounds and pounds of bacon and cheese and no carbs whatsoever. I would venture to say this woman never read the book at all.

According to the version I read in my morning paper (www.metro.co.uk), she was "living solely on meat, cheese and salads" (emphasis mine). Additionally she took "recommended precautions, includings using vitamins and other supplements marketed by Atkins".

drew
03-17-2006, 10:37 AM
THe stuff with the Atkins name on it is just corporate America buying the name and slapping it on everything.

Holto
03-17-2006, 10:39 AM
The bottom line is you won't lose fat faster than any other diet at the same amount of calories.

So don't make it more difficult than it really is. Use your cals to eat filling foods that you like.

BaggedE30
03-17-2006, 10:44 AM
The bottom line is you won't lose fat faster than any other diet at the same amount of calories.

So don't make it more difficult than it really is. Use your cals to eat filling foods that you like.

hmm, i dont see how, i ate loads on the Atkinds diet, like 2 eggs, 2 sausages and bacon for breakfast, sometiems a steak, a pack of 6 chicken legs during the day and a few packs of sliced cheese, then at nite id usually have more steak or whatever there was going. I lost 56lbs in about 4 months, i mustve been eating around 4000 cals a day easily. Although i came off the diet and put it all back on within about 6 months

Holto
03-17-2006, 10:48 AM
hmm, i dont see how


Here is how...



I must've been eating around 4000 cals a day easily

Bingo.

You weren't counting cals and therefore have no idea.

Try it with counting cals you will see the principle of energy balance is innescapable.

Atkins dieters will lose more weight, not fat. You lose a tremendous amount of water when low carbing. It's also very easy to lose bone. The water weight returns as evidenced in your particular case.

BaggedE30
03-17-2006, 11:17 AM
Here is how...




Bingo.

You weren't counting cals and therefore have no idea.

Try it with counting cals you will see the principle of energy balance is innescapable.

Atkins dieters will lose more weight, not fat. You lose a tremendous amount of water when low carbing. It's also very easy to lose bone. The water weight returns as evidenced in your particular case.

you can lose bone? my teeth started to crack while on it, thats the main reason i came off of it

BaggedE30
03-17-2006, 11:21 AM
Here is how...




Bingo.

You weren't counting cals and therefore have no idea.

Try it with counting cals you will see the principle of energy balance is innescapable.

Atkins dieters will lose more weight, not fat. You lose a tremendous amount of water when low carbing. It's also very easy to lose bone. The water weight returns as evidenced in your particular case.

i didnt lose just water, i lost an incredible amount of bodyfat. Peoples jaws dropped who hadnt seen me in a few months

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 12:37 PM
It'll change the acidity of your blood, which can lead to bad things.

Holto
03-17-2006, 01:10 PM
i didnt lose just water, i lost an incredible amount of bodyfat. Peoples jaws dropped who hadnt seen me in a few months

I'm not saying you did. I'm saying on equal net cals and any other type of diet the difference would be water weight. Both diets would result in the same amount of fat lost.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 01:16 PM
When you're on Atkins, you'll lose a lot of fat during the early part of the diet...and then it'll slow down and level off. I've read studies showing two people. One on a regular diet and one on the Atkins diet. The level of fat loss eventually became equal after a certain period of time. There are also less risks with a normal diet + caloric manipulation + exercise. When your body starts going into ketoacidosis, some bad things can start happening. You generally want the acidity of your blood to remain the same.

ArchAngel777
03-17-2006, 01:19 PM
Macro-nutrients are here for a reason. Anytime your ratio is set in a ridiculous manner, like 5% carbs, 47.5% protein and 47.5% fat over a long period of time, I believe, strongly, that there will be some serious health issues. Carbs exist for a reason, same with protein and fat. You can modifiy the ratios safely to a certain extent, but removing fat complete is a bad idea... Same with carbs, to remove them completely and the same with protein.

People need to remember that all three are essential for well being.

TheGimp
03-17-2006, 05:38 PM
People need to remember that all three are essential for well being.

Carbohydrates are a non-essential macronutrient. It is only since our ancestors made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers that they became a significant part of our diets.

Built
03-17-2006, 05:45 PM
Carbohydrates are a non-essential macronutrient. It is only since our ancestors made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers that they became a significant part of our diets.

Yep.

When I was fat and struggling with my weight and my health, I tried a LOT of things - lowfat, cardio classes, took up jogging, tried diet pills; I had the best success with Atkins -I lost most of the weight, it was effortless, a whole pile of other health problems just went away (no more high cholesterol, migraines, or type II diabetes meds) and ... I READ THE BOOK.

People who don't read the book and THINK they're "doing Atkins", usually aren't.

Ketoacidosis isn't the same thing as ketosis. And my bone density tests out as off the chart for a woman of twenty! Hooray for heavy pieces of iron.

The Atkins diet isn't the "don't eat anything but bacon" diet. I ate more vegetables on Atkins than most vegetarians I know. Anything I'd usually eat on bread, rice, noodles, or with potatoes I'd eat with romaine, cabbage, green beans or broccoli.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 05:53 PM
Carbohydrates are a non-essential macronutrient. It is only since our ancestors made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers that they became a significant part of our diets.This species is 60,000+ years old. No evolution occurred during that time. That doesn't even make sense.



People who don't read the book and THINK they're "doing Atkins", usually aren't.You're right.



Ketoacidosis isn't the same thing as ketosis. And my bone density tests out as off the chart for a woman of twenty! Hooray for heavy pieces of iron.I didn't say it was. Ketoacidosis is a big NO NO.



The Atkins diet isn't the "don't eat anything but bacon" diet. I ate more vegetables on Atkins than most vegetarians I know. Anything I'd usually eat on bread, rice, noodles, or with potatoes I'd eat with romaine, cabbage, green beans or broccoli.I started reading the book a while back and it seems a LOT of people do the diet wrong. The diet does, in fact, allow carbs...considerably more than most people probably think.

Ugh...if people just took the time to read the book it would save them oodles of trouble. My morbidly obese neighbor (looks to be somewhere around 350-400 pounds) came over for dinner and we were having pasta and french bread. He said "Oh, I can't have that I'm cutting out bread". I was like...WTF? I think that's ALL he was doing was not eating bread and that was his diet. I think he's heavier now than when I last saw him. Carbs are evil!!! MUST NOT EVER EAT THEM!! People think that's Atkins.

Built
03-17-2006, 06:03 PM
Carbohydrates are a non-essential macronutrient. It is only since our ancestors made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers that they became a significant part of our diets.


This species is 60,000+ years old. No evolution occurred during that time. That doesn't even make sense.
Actually, I think that was the point TheGimp was making - we evolved long before we became farmers. We now eat a VERY different diet than we were, ah, "designed" for.

Humans are a robust design - we can tolerate a LOT of stuff that isn't good for us - case in point, smoking - but it doesn't mean these things are optimal.

The carb thing seems to vary TREMENDOUSLY from person to person. You really have to find your own levels. And these levels appear to be able to change over time - I can't eat the amount of starch I did when I was a skinny teenager, but I can eat a LOT more than I could four years ago.

I'm thinking it's because I'm more muscular now. They don't mess me up like they used to. But I still can't go much higher than about 200-250g of carb in a day without being freakishly hungry, and that's on a leg day. Most days for me are between 90-200g, depending if it's a training day or not.

You just have to fiddle with it to find what works with your body and your training.

And if you decide to do an extreme diet like Atkins or PSMF, for the love of GOD, buy the book!

TheGimp
03-17-2006, 06:07 PM
This species is 60,000+ years old. No evolution occurred during that time. That doesn't even make sense.

My knowledge of anthropology is not extensive but the point, as Built says, is that the period of time we have been farmers is insignificant in evolutionary terms.

TheGimp
03-17-2006, 06:09 PM
Just to hammer the point home: gluconeogenesis means we can derive glucose from protien.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 06:21 PM
But how do you know what our species was doing 60,000+ years ago? That's one of those theories that is inconclusive. Something drawn from bits and piecs of vague findings. Plant...fruits...vegetables...have certainly been around longer than 60,000+ years.



Just to hammer the point home: gluconeogenesis means we can derive glucose from protien.Yes, of course.



The carb thing seems to vary TREMENDOUSLY from person to person. You really have to find your own levels. And these levels appear to be able to change over time - I can't eat the amount of starch I did when I was a skinny teenager, but I can eat a LOT more than I could four years ago.I, for one, feel very sick when I don't eat enough carbs. But I agree that it can vary from person to person.

ArchAngel777
03-17-2006, 06:23 PM
Carbohydrates are a non-essential macronutrient. It is only since our ancestors made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers that they became a significant part of our diets.

I don't share the same world view, therefore, I don't come to the same conclusion on you as this. Since I believe we were created, and that food as it occours naturally today is how we are supposed to eat. Therefore, since carbs exist in plants and nature, I consider them essential part of our diet. BTW, before you attack my world view (not saying you will, but many will) you can't prove evolution, or the stages of it, since none of us were there for that! Not going to get involved in religion though. Just giving you my perspective on how I feel about carbs.

ArchAngel777
03-17-2006, 06:28 PM
Actually, I think that was the point TheGimp was making - we evolved long before we became farmers. We now eat a VERY different diet than we were, ah, "designed" for.


That doesn't make sense. According to that theory, then eating 0 carbs is optimal for everyone... Have you tried eating 0 carbs? Actually, if we were designed to run on P + F only, instead of C, then no one should have a problem getting rid of the carbs in their diet and sticking to 100% P + F.

additionally, you mention the term "design", as in we were designed for something and something wasn't designed for us? It could be the other way around. Perhaps according to evolution, carbs were designed for us and that is why they are here... Either way, getting into evolutionary stuff is futile, since no one was here during these times and no one really knows.

Nito
03-17-2006, 06:35 PM
What is the max ammount of carbohydrates that one can ingest while on the Atkins diet?

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 06:38 PM
What is the max ammount of carbohydrates that one can ingest while on the Atkins diet?It's completely dependent upon the individual.

Slim Schaedle
03-17-2006, 06:39 PM
Carbohydrates are a non-essential macronutrient. It is only since our ancestors made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers that they became a significant part of our diets.
As much as I love carbs and enjoy my abilty to handle them well, this statement is correct.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 06:41 PM
No, that statement isn't correct. It's a theory that can't be proven, so let's move on to something concrete and factual and can be tested since we live here and now.

Slim Schaedle
03-17-2006, 06:42 PM
They're nonessential. Our body does not require them to operate.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 06:44 PM
Every nutrient is essential in some amount. That statement defies all scientific data.

Slim Schaedle
03-17-2006, 06:45 PM
Every nutrient is essential in some amount. That statement defies all scientific data.
Ummm, explain how carbohydrate ingestion is essential

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 06:46 PM
Do you realize that fiber is a form of carbohydrates?

ArchAngel777
03-17-2006, 06:47 PM
They're nonessential. Our body does not require them to operate.

I don't know if this can be proven anymore than saying fat isn't required or protein.

Has anyone been on a 0 carb diet for years? I guess I'd like to see the information on it. I'd like to see if they are healthy, can run, swim, bike, lift weights like the best of us. I'd like to see if they have endurance and everything else.

So, does anyone have evidence that 0 carbs is the ultimate way to be? Because until there is a study, it is nothing but a theory that is unproven.

Slim Schaedle
03-17-2006, 06:49 PM
I don't know if this can be proven anymore than saying fat isn't required or protein.
Ok, ...guys, ...do you all really know about this stuff or are you speculating like alot of people do on this forum?

ArchAngel777
03-17-2006, 06:50 PM
Ok, ...guys, ...do you all really know about this stuff or are you speculating like alot of people do on this forum?

Why are you dodging the question? You could live quite a long time without any fat in your diet, or without any protein. Eventually you will die, but you can live without it (for a while). Which is just as credable as your statement that says "You don't need them operate".

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 06:51 PM
Ok, ...guys, ...do you all really know about this stuff or are you speculating like alot of people do on this forum?It's my major.

If carbs weren't essential, your body wouldn't have to convert protein and the glycerol portions of fats into glucose via gluconeogenesis to be used by the body. That's pretty much your body's reaction to not ingesting carbs.

Slim Schaedle
03-17-2006, 06:53 PM
Why are you dodging the question?
Which question did I dodge?

TheGimp
03-17-2006, 06:53 PM
It's my major.

If carbs weren't essential, your body wouldn't have to convert protein and the glycerol portions of fats into glucose via gluconeogenesis to be used by the body. That's pretty much your body's reaction to not ingesting carbs.

The fact that they can be synthesised is the very definition of non-essential, no?

TheGimp
03-17-2006, 06:54 PM
Since I believe we were created

And on that note my participation in this discussion is ended.

Slim Schaedle
03-17-2006, 06:55 PM
It's my major.

If carbs weren't essential, your body wouldn't have to convert protein and the glycerol portions of fats into glucose via gluconeogenesis to be used by the body. That's pretty much your body's reaction to not ingesting carbs.
Right. Carbohydrate ingestion is not completely necessary. So you agree?

ArchAngel777
03-17-2006, 06:56 PM
Which question did I dodge?

Has there been a study done on this? Has anyone lived on 0 carbs for an extended period of time (years) and then checked out medically whether they are healthy or not. Until you provide information on a study like that, your theory isn't grounded.

Slim Schaedle
03-17-2006, 06:57 PM
Has there been a study done on this? Has anyone lived on 0 carbs for an extended period of time (years) and then checked out medically whether they are healthy or not.
I didn't orginally address anything directly related to that so it's really not my question to answer.

That doesn't really have any direct relation to the queston if carbs are essential or not, which is what I did address.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 06:58 PM
The fact that they can be synthesised is the very definition of non-essential, no?That is not the context for which I am referring to.

Slim Schaedle
03-17-2006, 06:59 PM
That is not the context for which I am referring to.
:scratch:

ArchAngel777
03-17-2006, 07:00 PM
So you have no evidence to back it up. No, real world evidence.

Your statement of "The body can operate without them" can apply to any of the macronutrients for a given amount of time. So, logically i'd have to presume that you meant the body could live without them for its entire duration... Then, with that, I just want proof that you can. I want proof that if it isn't "essential" then they are not required for health or longevity.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 07:02 PM
All I'm saying is glucose itself is essential to the body. Obviously the body can produce glucose by itself, but you must be taking in a lot of protein so you don't sacrifice your body tissues...since the glucose will be formed from amino acids after the nitrogren part is stripped and converted to glucose.

Slim Schaedle
03-17-2006, 07:03 PM
All I'm saying is glucose itself is essential to the body.
Agreed. Good deal :thumbup:

Slim Schaedle
03-17-2006, 07:06 PM
So you have no evidence to back it up. No, real world evidence.

Your statement of "The body can operate without them" can apply to any of the macronutrients for a given amount of time. So, logically i'd have to presume that you meant the body could live without them for its entire duration... Then, with that, I just want proof that you can. I want proof that if it isn't "essential" then they are not required for health or longevity.
I don't to slap a study on here to know what I am talking about. If you want a study, you can look one up.

You really don't even need a study. A good textbook will have plenty of info to keep you busy.

ArchAngel777
03-17-2006, 07:08 PM
I don't to slap a study on here to know what I am talking about. If you want a study, you can look one up.

You really don't even need a study. A good textbook will have plenty of info to keep you busy.

A lot of things look great on paper, but when taken into reality, fall flat on their face. I looked and found no studies of a 0 carbohydrate diet and I believe strongly because it isn't ideal and that carbs are therefore essential to our well-being.

Case closed for me, I guess, unless someone wants to show me a study that I am unable to find.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 07:11 PM
People always talk about ketone bodies forming in the blood when low carbs are ingested (ketone bodies are not a good replacement for glucose in providing energy for the nervous system and brain). This actually isn't the case. Ketone bodies form after the glucose in the body runs out. Meaning, there are no more amino acids to convert to glucose, thus drawing upon fat for the main source of energy. If the protein intake is high enough, the body can continue converting amine groups to glucose via gluconeogenesis. You want this process to keep up so you'll have glucose for your brain/nervous system/etc.. Ketone bodies are nowhere near as efficient as glucose for supplying energy to the brain. Glucose is essentially "brain food". So if you are going to skimp on carbs, keeping the fat and especially protein higher, you can keep this process from happening. You also want the protein intake higher so the protein won't be sacrified to the body over your muscles.

Slim Schaedle
03-17-2006, 07:13 PM
A lot of things look great on paper, but when taken into reality, fall flat on their face. I looked and found no studies of a 0 carbohydrate diet and I believe strongly because it isn't ideal and that carbs are therefore essential to our well-being.

Case closed for me, I guess, unless someone wants to show me a study that I am unable to find.
Ideal and essential are two different things.

Slim Schaedle
03-17-2006, 07:14 PM
People always talk about ketone bodies forming in the blood when low carbs are ingested (ketone bodies are not a good replacement for glucose in providing energy for the nervous system and brain). This actually isn't the case. Ketone bodies form after the glucose in the body runs out. Meaning, there are no more amino acids to convert to glucose, thus drawing upon fat for the main source of energy. If the protein intake is high enough, the body can continue converting amine groups to glucose via gluconeogenesis. You want this process to keep up so you'll have glucose for your brain/nervous system/etc.. Ketone bodies are nowhere near as efficient as glucose for supplying energy to the brain. Glucose is essentially "brain food". So if you are going to skimp on carbs, keeping the fat and especially protein higher, you can keep this process from happening. You also want the protein intake higher so the protein won't be sacrified to the body over your muscles.
And this is a good example of the difference between ideal and essential.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 07:15 PM
The problem is when you're body runs out of glucose that bad side effects start happening.

ArchAngel777
03-17-2006, 07:18 PM
Ideal and essential are two different things.

Very true and I suppose I should be more clear on that. The point I am trying to convey is that Carbs + Fat + Protein is more optimal for health, living, longevity than simply using Fat + Protein. I guess instead of using essential, I was thinking more on the lines of optimal, to be honest. I suppose some vitamins aren't considered essential either, then.

Slim Schaedle
03-17-2006, 07:20 PM
Very true and I suppose I should be more clear on that. The point I am trying to convey is that Carbs + Fat + Protein is more optimal for health, living, longevity than simply using Fat + Protein. I guess instead of using essential, I was thinking more on the lines of optimal, to be honest. I suppose some vitamins aren't considered essential either, then.
Agreed. All 3 are optimal. Good deal.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 07:20 PM
There are essential forms of carbohydrates. One being fiber, which can't be produced by the body and needs to be ingested from outside sources. If you're not getting enough fiber, your digestive tract will turn to ass. Then again, there are others who can't handle fiber very well, but that's usually because they increased their intake too quickly. Generally though, an efficient fiber intake is good for the digestive system and can prevent many digestive diseases.

ArchAngel777
03-17-2006, 07:27 PM
Actually, I was just thinking that carbohydrates do play a role in evolution, an important one, I believe. I suppose this is subjective, but generally it is easy to overdose, or rather, overeat on carbs. Therefore, you can store the extra as fat. Perhaps carbs play a dual role, 1) quick energy and 2) storage of extra energy to fat.

Obviously eating too much protein or too much fat will have the same affect as point #2, but generally eating protein and fat will satisfy your hunger cravings, thus cause you to eat less (possibly). Perhaps carbs was an evolutionary way to create a larger appitite and thus increase body fat (for survival of later on)...

Yeah, a way long shot... But it has just as good as a chance as any of those conspiracy theories :D

Songsangnim
03-17-2006, 08:41 PM
http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=65809&highlight=Atkins

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 10:31 PM
^^^

That doesn't help anything and this has been a good discussion so I wouldn't want it to be locked.

Songsangnim
03-18-2006, 12:14 AM
^^^

That doesn't help anything and this has been a good discussion so I wouldn't want it to be locked.


Why would it be locked? That is a old thread. I merely showed that the OP's question had been asked before as regards Atkins. He asked if Atkins were safe. In the link I provided there are other links which talk about Atkins and point out the negatives of such a diet.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-18-2006, 01:17 AM
Ok. Just worried me is all. I'm tired. :/

ddegroff
03-18-2006, 01:28 AM
man what tells me CHO is essential is after 4hrs of hard class, my head hurts and I'm so tired. This is my body telling me I've run out of glucose. now yes i could just eat some protein or fat and my body would use it for energy. But my brain loves the glucose.

just my .02, what you guys discussed was very interesting.

Built
03-18-2006, 01:36 AM
Having actually DONE the Atkins diet (and not just read horror stories about it, or just lived on bacon), I can tell you that I had no trouble concentrating while in ketosis, and I'm an analyst - I'm doing spreadsheet and database work all day at work. In fact, it was amazing - I just didn't seem to run out of steam. First three days were nasty, then ... fine.

I stayed in ketosis for just under a year.

No problems at all.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-18-2006, 01:37 AM
^^^

That's your personal experience and can't be generalized. But I'm glad it worked for you.

ddegroff
03-18-2006, 01:40 AM
yeah well Built you tend to set the standard for everything!

Like everything, its personal.

Built
03-18-2006, 01:44 AM
Well, like I said, I actually read the book and followed it to the letter.

I have belonged to a number of lowcarb support boards, and this is overwhelmingly the response of most of the people whose experiences I've read on those forums. I also mod a board which is largely populated by people who don't handle carbs very well, and who generally respond better to a lower carb approach - many of us started out on Atkins.

Just like how we get "all that protein is going to kill your kidneys" for the way WE eat, I think Atkins gets a bad rap from people who haven't actually tried it, properly, by reading the book. Done properly, it's a very healthy diet. Lots of greens, plenty of protein, healthy fat, and as much carb as the individual can "tolerate". The goal is to eventually eat as much carb as your body lets you without messing you up (in the sense of food cravings and appetite control).

ddegroff
03-18-2006, 01:51 AM
I'm actually writing a paper on the Atkins diet for one of my nutrition classes. When I took the topic, I did it because I thought it was the most worthless diet out there. Now with the way I'm eating right now and what I hear from you and around here, it might not be that bad. This country is carb hungry like crazy (i admit i can be one of those at times). I'm going to pick up the book this week to actually see what the diet is all about. My presentation at the end of the semester is really going to blow peoples minds (i just hope the teacher sees the reasoning and so on).

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-18-2006, 02:12 AM
Well, like I said, I actually read the book and followed it to the letter.

I have belonged to a number of lowcarb support boards, and this is overwhelmingly the response of most of the people whose experiences I've read on those forums. I also mod a board which is largely populated by people who don't handle carbs very well, and who generally respond better to a lower carb approach - many of us started out on Atkins.

Just like how we get "all that protein is going to kill your kidneys" for the way WE eat, I think Atkins gets a bad rap from people who haven't actually tried it, properly, by reading the book. Done properly, it's a very healthy diet. Lots of greens, plenty of protein, healthy fat, and as much carb as the individual can "tolerate". The goal is to eventually eat as much carb as your body lets you without messing you up (in the sense of food cravings and appetite control).Agreed. =)

d'Anconia
03-18-2006, 03:55 AM
Okay first things first. Assuming one believes in evolution, even if/when we were primarily hunter/gatherers, that does not mean that there were no carbs around and that we ate no carbs. If a caveman saw a nice plant with strawberries over it I'd put my money on him eating it. If items that hold carbs are around and can be utilized for energy then why wouldn't the human body try to take advantage of it?
I do believe that the human body runs mostly off of protein and fats though, since when we were hunter/gatherers it would make sense that protein and fat would be high in our diets but carbs wouldn't be as high.
ArchAngel I'm sure you could find plenty of studies for people who have eaten very small amounts of carbs for extended periods of time but I would wonder whether there is someone out there who hasn't eaten at least a few grams of carbs within the last few years... it just isn't very likely at all. I would think that foods would have to be seriously altered (chemically or some sort of refining process) to get rid of 100% of the carbs in them.

BTW I was actually thinking about the whole hunter/gatherer and carb/protein/fat thing the other day. Do most nuts and other 'gathered' foods tend not to go bad as quickly or perhaps are more frequently in season than other carb-loaded foods (I'm talking about ones in the wild)? I don't remember most nuts being able to get spoiled whereas fruits get spoiled quite easily; is this because most nuts are oil-based (at least I think they are) while fruits are water-based? Kinda random but I got in a slight argument with a client where she was telling me that the high protein and fat for humans because of hunter/gatherer evolution didn't make as much sense because fruits (carb-loaded) are in season just as often as nuts (fat/protein-loaded) are. Do nuts really even have a season that's the only time they naturally show up on their trees/plants? And nuts don't go bad, at least for a very long time, right?

Edit: Oh yeah, and animals don't really go out of season. I guess sometimes in the winter they get a little scarce but a lot of them are still around (especially the fish).

TheGimp
03-18-2006, 04:18 AM
If a caveman saw a nice plant with strawberries over it I'd put my money on him eating it.

Exactly:


Carbohydrates are a non-essential macronutrient. It is only since our ancestors made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers that they became a significant part of our diets.

Davidelmo
03-18-2006, 07:57 AM
I guess it depends on the context of 'essential':

a) It's not essential for you to EAT carbs because your body can produce them

b) They are essential BECAUSE your body produces them.

Bruise Brubaker
03-18-2006, 07:14 PM
I'm curious to what degree there is a correlation between people having trouble with carbs and people having intestinal parasites or other pathogenic overgrowth of bacterias and yeasts.

I find the paleolithic diet very interesting. One of the most important of that diet is the avoidance of grains. Fruits aren't that available in nature, and the fruits found in stores are much more sweeter, due to the specific selection of sweetness. So basically, it is a diet high in meat, veggies and nuts with some fruits.
http://www.thepaleodiet.com

I'm currently on a very low carb diet to try and heal my intestines. Don't have any problem with the lack of carbs.

I think wondering if carbohydrates are essential is a futility, Even someone on a 100% meat diet will have some carbs, especially if he eats liver, in the form of glycogen.

My conclusion is that nuts are greatly underestimated.

Built
03-18-2006, 09:49 PM
I guess it depends on the context of 'essential':

a) It's not essential for you to EAT carbs because your body can produce them

b) They are essential BECAUSE your body produces them.

Without arguing semantics, in this context, essential means your body cannot make them. For example, the essential amino acids are the ones you MUST consume.


I'm curious to what degree there is a correlation between people having trouble with carbs and people having intestinal parasites or other pathogenic overgrowth of bacterias and yeasts.

I find the paleolithic diet very interesting. One of the most important of that diet is the avoidance of grains. Fruits aren't that available in nature, and the fruits found in stores are much more sweeter, due to the specific selection of sweetness. So basically, it is a diet high in meat, veggies and nuts with some fruits.
http://www.thepaleodiet.com

I'm currently on a very low carb diet to try and heal my intestines. Don't have any problem with the lack of carbs.

I think wondering if carbohydrates are essential is a futility, Even someone on a 100% meat diet will have some carbs, especially if he eats liver, in the form of glycogen.

My conclusion is that nuts are greatly underestimated.

Interesting points you bring up bruise. I used to get yeast infections ALL THE TIME. Like, from the time I was about four.

I no longer live truly LOW carb, but it's lower than most, even bulking. I haven't had any candida problems since switching my diet around. They STOPPED when I did Atkins. Never came back.

Paul Stagg
03-19-2006, 07:38 AM
The article even points out that this isolated case isn't an indication of the danger of low/no carb diets.

Ketoacidosis is usually a result of very high alcohol ingestion, is it not? Not eating carbs will not cause ketoacidosis.

Essential means the body can not produce it. There are amino acids that are essential, and there are fats that are. Carbs can be produced in the liver from protein, ergo carbs are not essential.

Optimal is quite different.

There are certainly individuals who benefit from low/no carb dieting - there is no reason to be dogmatic about this subject.

Built
03-19-2006, 09:40 AM
Indeed.

Thanks Paul.

mercury
03-19-2006, 03:01 PM
I think people are forgetting that our ancestors were hunters and gathers before farming. They did take in simple carbs from the fruits and berries they would eat between hunts. This also provided the fiber that we need to keep things moving along. It wasn’t until after farming, that carbs became a major part of our diet. We don’t naturally eat wheat and other grains; we have to process them to a point were they become edible.

Holto
03-19-2006, 04:56 PM
I think people are forgetting that our ancestors were hunters and gathers before farming. They did take in simple carbs from the fruits and berries they would eat between hunts. This also provided the fiber that we need to keep things moving along. It wasnít until after farming, that carbs became a major part of our diet. We donít naturally eat wheat and other grains; we have to process them to a point were they become edible.

I'm not sure what your point is here but I was watching Ray Mears Bushcraft series and he was visiting africa. I was amazed at the carbs that they were able to find all around. Roots, berries and various other sources. It seemed that they could eat it each day. The men did the hunting and the women did the gathering. It's really was amazing. I had to download both seasons.

Manveet
03-19-2006, 05:53 PM
From Lyle's new article: How Many Carbohydrates Do You Need?


As I discussed in great detail previously, there is no actual physiological requirement for dietary carbohydrate. Most tissues can use fatty acids, the few that utilize glucose exclusively just reuse the same amounts over and over, and the brain switches to using ketones when glucose isn't available with the body making what little is required from other sources. From the standpoint of survival, the minimum amount of carbohydrates that are required in a diet is zero grams.

Of course, when carbohydrates are restricted completely, the body has to find something to make glucose out of. That something is lactate and pyruvate (produced from glucose metabolism), glycerol (from fat metabolism) and amino acids. It's the amino acid use that can be problematic since they have to come from somewhere. Under conditions of total starvation, that somewhere is generally muscle tissue; the body will readily break down protein to scavenge the amino acids it needs to produce glucose. In doing so, the muscle released alanine and glutamine (produced in the muscle from the breakdown of leucine and the branch chained amino acids, so you know) which can be converted to glucose in the liver.

Protein losses during total starvation are extremely high to start, gradually decreasing as the brain switches over to using ketones for fuel. Even so, in complete starvation there is always some loss of body protein. Over long periods of time, this goes from harmful (because function is compromised from muscle loss) to downright fatal.

From a body recomposition point of view, it should be obvious that losing muscle protein this way is bad. Researchers found years ago that providing adequate dietary protein helped to decrease if not outright eliminate the utilization of body protein for gluconeogenesis (a big word meaning the production of new glucose). Diets providing nothing but small amounts of protein (to the tune of 1.5 g/kg lean body mass or so) helped to almost eliminate the nitrogen losses inherent to starvation.

Link to full article:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/Articles/howmanycarbs.html

Holto
03-19-2006, 06:12 PM
Ok seriosly why is it that when I go to...

http://www.forums.lylemcdonald.com/forums/

...using IE or Firefox the only forum I see is "Announcements", this is crazy.

Manveet
03-19-2006, 06:13 PM
you're not logged in.

Holto
03-19-2006, 06:24 PM
Thank you.

seK
03-20-2006, 11:11 AM
I don't share the same world view, therefore, I don't come to the same conclusion on you as this. Since I believe we were created, and that food as it occours naturally today is how we are supposed to eat. Therefore, since carbs exist in plants and nature, I consider them essential part of our diet. BTW, before you attack my world view (not saying you will, but many will) you can't prove evolution, or the stages of it, since none of us were there for that! Not going to get involved in religion though. Just giving you my perspective on how I feel about carbs.

I am by no means attacking, but evolution itself is and has been proven, this common misconception is due to the average persons misunderstanding of the word "theory" and how it applies to science. So just for future reference

Theory of Evolution = proven and you can see it happen
Origin of Man= not so easily defined.

But thatís pretty off topic.

My opinion is that cultural changes are the driving force behind out dietís.

d'Anconia
03-20-2006, 02:17 PM
Yeah I was thinking about the idea that evolution or natural selection doesn't take place during the course of a lifetime and now that I think of it, that isn't really true.

threatmix
03-20-2006, 02:45 PM
I actually just did my final presentation for my nutrition class on a diet based on what our evolutionary ancestors ate. There is a lot of scientific research to support this way of eating, the most convincing of which is that the most common deadly diseases to plague modern Western society (i.e. cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, hypertension), are rare or non-existent in societies that follow a hunter-gatherer way of life. It is also believed that the life expectancy took a dive after the introduction of plants and animals about 10,000 years ago, that is it was higher in the previous hunter-gather lifestyle (this is attributed to both the change in diet from one based on animal source foods and micronutrient-rich vegetables and fruits to less nutritious cereal grains and dairy, and the effects this altered lifestyle had, for example the rapid spread of disease in high population densities). If anybody is interested in viewing the sources I've cited, I can post them.

It's interesting because I've also been following a thread on another site (one specifically for the Paleolithic-based diet), in which a 71-year old guy has claimed he has been living on a diet with absolutely no plant matter (grains, fruits, or even vegetables), and only on meat and some additional fats such as cream and butter for 47 years, and leads a healthy, active lifestyle:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=287013

threatmix
03-20-2006, 02:58 PM
Just a quick note about that link I posted: some of the people posting there sound like they are making unsupported claims and have no idea what they're talking about and quite possibly may not, but it's an interesting topic and a related issue.