There's No Such Thing As Bad Cholesterol
As Dr. Michael Eades has pointed out to me and on his blog, what matters is not your LDL cholesterol number but whether your particles measure out to be large and fluffy (good!) or small and dense (bad!). (Gregg's doctor about fell out of his shoes when I asked him to measure Gregg's LDL particle size, among other things.)
Karen DeCoster retweeted this piece at Health Impact News -- "Putting The Myth To Rest: There Is No Such Thing As Bad Cholesterol," and though it's apparently a coconut oil sales site, the article, by Brian Shilavy, seems solid:
The 'noddy-science' of the so-called 'functional food' manufacturers would have us believe that there is such a thing as 'bad' cholesterol and 'good' cholesterol. This is, in fact, totally untrue. The cholesterol itself, whether being transported by LDL or HDL, is exactly the same. Cholesterol is simply a necessary ingredient that is required to be regularly delivered around the body for the efficient healthy development, maintenance and functioning of our cells. The difference is in the 'transporters' (the lipoproteins HDL and LDL) and both types are essential for the human body's delivery logistics to work effectively.Problems can occur, however, when the LDL particles are both small and their carrying capacity outweighs the transportation potential of available HDL. This can lead to more cholesterol being 'delivered' around the body with lower resources for returning excess capacity to the liver.
LDL can vary in its structure and occur in particles of varying size. It is the smaller LDL particle sizes that can easily become 'trapped' in the arteries by proteoglycans, which is, itself, a kind of 'filler' found between the cells in all animal and human bodies. This can then cause the cholesterol the LDL carries to contribute to the formation of fatty deposits called 'plaques' (a process known as atherogenesis). As these deposits build up, they restrict the arteries' width and flexibility. This causes an increase in blood pressure and can also lead to other cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks or strokes.
The LDL itself is consequently sometimes referred to as 'bad cholesterol', but you can now appreciate the fact that this is simply incorrect. In fact LDL, HDL and cholesterol are all essential to our health. However, it seems that it has become common for humans to have a preponderance of 'unhealthily' small LDL particles, which can become a precursor to heart and arterial disease due to the mechanisms described. It is apparently healthier to have a smaller number of larger LDL particles carrying the same quantity of cholesterol than a large number of small LDL particles might transport, but for some reason this is less common. This is an interesting area that demands more research.
When LDL becomes retained by the glycol-proteins in the arteries it is subject to being oxidized by 'free radicals'. This is when the process can become health threatening. It has therefore been suggested that increasing the amount of antioxidants in our diet might effectively 'mop up' free radicals, and consequently reduce this harmful oxidation. Although the idea of consuming foods rich in antioxidants, or even using supplements, is now widely promoted, the scientific evidence for their efficacy still remains to be fully established.
Another point to consider is the occurrence of substances called 'very-low-density-lipids' or VLDL, also known as triglycerides. VLDL is converted to LDL in the bloodstream and therefore contributes towards increased levels of LDL and to subsequent potential cholesterol-related health problems. This is why triglycerides are usually measured when a cholesterol test of your blood is undertaken.
The production of VLDL in the liver - which amounts to a combination of cholesterol and low-density apolipoprotein - is exacerbated by the intake of fructose. Fructose is the type of sugar found in many fruits, it is also a component of sucrose and of the widely used food ingredient high-fructose corn syrup. This implies that anyone whose LDL or triglyceride levels are unduly high should cut back on those sweet sugary snacks, and even on the sweeter, fructose laden fruits; not simply reduce their intake of fatty foods!
He goes on to review some of the facts and fallacies at the link above.
There's an increasing amount of evidence pointing to the idea that heart disease is caused by inflammation.
Wowee. So you mean I can go ahead and order one of these, Amy? ;-)
qdpsteve at March 25, 2012 3:37 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3098906">comment from qdpsteveJust don't eat catsup, relish, or the bun. It'll fill you up and you won't have the insulin secretion caused by carbs (that's what puts on fat). Also, unlike with carbs, if you're eating meat, you'll stop when you're full. And having fat in meat helps you feel full sooner. I probably eat far less calories now that I don't eat bread, sugar, etc.
Amy Alkon at March 25, 2012 3:47 PM
Is it just me, or is it really poetic justice that the lady fights to keep hearts from being broken from both inside and out?
Radwaste at March 25, 2012 3:50 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3098912">comment from RadwasteAww, that's sweet.
Amy Alkon at March 25, 2012 3:51 PM
I wish the lady wouldn't irresponsibly promote a meat-based diet, laden with fat, oils, and dairy, when that's not what the proponderance of the evidence shows is good for heart disease or health in general.
Dr. Esselstyn, who is Bill Clinton's doctor, has a far more impressive track record treating and even reversing heart disease with a low fat, plant-based diet. He's actually produced a clinical study of his patients. Where are Eades's clinical studies? He's had decades to produce some.
Also, he's amazingly quiet about the recent study showing the dangers of red meat, though I'm sure he'll blog about "correlation not equaling causation" soon. What else can he say and keep people buying books?
And has anyone been reading about pink slime? For goodness sakes, at least don't eat that hot dog or burger unless it's grass-fed and minimally processed.
LS at March 26, 2012 5:52 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3099901">comment from LSI wish the lady wouldn't irresponsibly promote a meat-based diet, laden with fat, oils, and dairy, when that's not what the proponderance of the evidence shows is good for heart disease or health in general. Dr. Esselstyn, who is Bill Clinton's doctor, has a far more impressive track record treating and even reversing heart disease with a low fat, plant-based diet.
Wrong. And Dr. Eades doesn't do clinical studies, but if you read his blog, he does an amazing job of explaining which are and are not good science.
I'm so sick of the grab to demean somebody by the fact that they, themselves, aren't doing clinical studies.
Gary Taubes doesn't, either, and he is one of the most rigorous people -- along with epidemiologist Dr. Sander Greenland -- in rooting out what is and isn't good science.
LS, you have a bias against low-carb, based in your personal experience. To say that low-fat eating is healthy goes against a mountain of evidence. Meat provides every nutrient in perfect supply for humans save for vitamin C, and there's some evidence that humans get enough vitamin C if they simply don't eat carbs.
Furthermore, I talked on my show last night about the importance of ketones for the brain. "Your Brain On Ketones: How a high-fat diet can help the brain work better," by Emily Deans, M.D.:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201104/your-brain-ketones
Please don't put out this unscience-based crapthink here. The fact that Bill Clinton's doctor has him on an eating plan that cuts dietary cholesterol, despite the fact that the lipid hypothesis has never been proved, is cause for a malpractice suit, not celebration.
Amy Alkon at March 26, 2012 7:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3099915">comment from Amy AlkonTom D. Naughton nutshells it well here:
http://www.fathead-movie.com/
Bullshit disputed! Next!
Amy Alkon at March 26, 2012 7:17 AM
Amy, unfortunately, you're the one with the bias. I started out, just like you, buying all this low carb spin.
Eades isn't a scientist, and the fact he produces no clinical studies of the supposed "thousands of patients he's helped" is suspicious. Anybody can cherry pick and blog biased rebuttals to studies, and conveniently leave out critical details (as he did regarding the mummies!). According to him, almost any plant-based research is incompetently conducted, whereas anything promoting heavy meat/fat consumption is reliable.
Well, at least Esselstyn puts his results out there to be critiqued. Eades produces no clinical research to be reviewed, while criticizing that of others when it conflicts with his book-selling diet advice.
Please just watch "Forks Over Knives". At least hear the other side before promoting this kind of diet. People love to hear good news about their bad habits, so they're going to go out, with your blessing, and have a thick, hormone-laden, heavily processed, pink slime burger and think they're eating "healthy".
LS at March 26, 2012 7:27 AM
Who are these people? Esselstyn is a highly respected cardiac surgeon at The Cleveland Clinic. If what you just posted were true, none of his patients would've lost weight or reversed heart disease. And Asians wouldn't have gone centuries without diabetes (which has only occurred as they've adopted our meat-based western diet)
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/19/heart.attack.proof.diet/index.html
LS at March 26, 2012 7:32 AM
"And Asians wouldn't have gone centuries without diabetes (which has only occurred as they've adopted our meat-based western diet)"
Asians aren't getting diabetes because of a meat based diet. You don't get diabetes from eating meat! Diabetes is a blood sugar disorder caused by insulin resistance arising from too much glucose, fructose, sucrose and other sugars in the blood. In this day and age diabetes comes as a result of all the other stuff that goes with a typical western diet:
1. High fructose corn syrup in everything THE BIG KILLER
2. White flour products
3. Too much food period
4. Too little exercise
RationalReader at March 26, 2012 8:00 AM
Yes, I agree. Refined carbs, fructose, and additives, etc. But also fat, which interferes with insulin receptors in the cells and increases insulin sensitivity.
The main point is that diabetes is NOT caused by healthy whole grains and starches. Diabetes was unheard of in populations eating whole grains and starches. Asians ate meat, but usually more like a condiment for flavoring with their overall plant-based/grain based diet.
LS at March 26, 2012 8:05 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3099981">comment from LSAmy, unfortunately, you're the one with the bias. I started out, just like you, buying all this low carb spin.
It's not "spin"; you just call it that because you have no other way to defend your non-evidence-based viewpoint.
According to him, almost any plant-based research is incompetently conducted, whereas anything promoting heavy meat/fat consumption is reliable.
Eades, like Taubes, looks at evidence. He delineates the evidence and why bad science is bad science in great detail on his blog. It's very transparent.
Nobody's telling anybody to eat meat shot up with hormones -- again, you can't defend your point of view with science, so you resort to low blows. Good job!
PS Regarding the notion above that only white flour is bad for you, there's actually no such thing as "healthy whole grains." Read Wheat Belly by cardiologist William Davis, for more on that.
Also, for a reference to someone who has done clinical studies, check out the work of biochem prof Dr. Richard Feinman, with whom I corresponded yesterday, and who I quoted on my radio show about low-carb science yesterday night. Here's his blog: http://rdfeinman.wordpress.com/
Here, from the first blog post up there:
http://rdfeinman.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/dietary-carbohydrate-restriction-in-the-management-of-diabetes-the-15-theses/
LS has sadly fallen in the thrall of some vegan/animal rights dude and has taken it upon herself to defend his ideologically driven crapthink as science.
Amy Alkon at March 26, 2012 8:15 AM
"The human body has little capacity to store carbohydrates. So it needs a method to store the energy of excessive carbohydrates. It does so by converting carbohydrates to triglycerides, which are then converted to fat, especially the fat in your abdominal region (visceral fat)."
This isn't true. Our bodies prefer to burn carbs for energy, not store it as fat, and it can easily store (I believe) app 2 pds of excess carbs as glycogen, for energy use later.
Of course, if you over consume carbs, especially high-calorie refined carbs, therefore exceeding daily calorie requirements, then some carbs will be converted to fat, but the energy cost of doing so is not efficient for the body.
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2010other/news/weil.htm
"In highly-controlled experiments, in order to show a rise in triglycerides, the experimental design has to be based on feeding the subjects large amounts of refined sugars and flours, and/or the subjects in the experiments are required to eat more food than they can comfortably consume; in other words, they are forced to overeat. Confirmation of the healthfulness of carbohydrates is seen when people are fed starches, such as whole grains, beans, and potatoes, and green and yellow vegetables, rather than overfed sugars and flours; their triglyceride levels do not increase."
"Dr. Weil’s position runs contrary to several irrefutable observations that you can make for yourself. Starches have fueled the engines of human civilizations for at least the past 14,000 years. Carbohydrates (starches), such as rice in Asia, corn in Central America, potatoes in South America, and barley and wheat in Europe, have provided the bulk of the calories for almost all human diets. Only a few small primitive populations, living at the extremes of the environment, such as the Inuit (Eskimos), have been fueled by saturated fats. Just as undeniable, worldwide today, populations of people who consume the greatest amounts of carbohydrate are the trimmest and fittest, and also have the lowest incidence of heart disease and diabetes. This truth is confirmed by observing the change that occurs when people from Japan, for example, migrate to the United States or Europe. As they eat less rice (carbohydrate) and more saturated fat (meat and dairy products) they become fatter and sicker.
Pointing the guilty finger away from fat and towards carbohydrates is self-serving for those diet-experts who themselves refuse to give up their high-fat diet. Food industries buy scientific research published in respectable journals because it is one of their most effective marketing tools. The end result of this mixing up of the truth could be that billions of people will be deprived of a real opportunity to live long, disease-free lives."
LS at March 26, 2012 8:25 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3100016">comment from LSLS, you've full of it. Dr. McDougall, your nutritional Jesus, is an animal rights nut and that drives what he posts as "science." Feinman lays out the science rather well -- and not surprisingly, since he's a biologist!
Oh, and a little secret: Why do I refer so often to Eades' posts? Not because there are no other sources; there are a good deal of them. But, he writes more accessibly about the science than just about anybody out there.
Amy Alkon at March 26, 2012 8:36 AM
"Asians ate meat, but usually more like a condiment for flavoring with their overall plant-based/grain based diet."
Asians who ate meat as a condiment did so because they didn't have the money to do anything more, as has been the case with probably the majority of the world's population for centuries. You are right - they didn't get diabetes. The calorie load simply wasn't high enough to create that condition. But neither was the nutrient load high enough for optimal nutrition. The human body can subsist on an amazing range of diets but that doesn't mean any one diet is ideal.
For solid, decades long research on what very health traditional populations have eaten, see the Weston Price Foundation website. Weston Price, an early 20th century dentist, found that healthy traditional populations did eat meat, fish and poultry, far more than just as condiments. They also ate small amounts of fermented grains and dairy but those were more the condiments, not the meat.
RationalReader at March 26, 2012 8:37 AM
"LS has sadly fallen in the thrall of some vegan/animal rights dude and has taken it upon herself to defend his ideologically driven crapthink as science."
No, I'm looking at physicians like Esstelyn, Ornish, Pritikin, and McDougall with years of hard clinical evidence treating actual patients.
Sadly, you are choosing to believe the rhetoric of people solely interested in selling books promoting an unhealthy way of eating. They aren't research scientists. They bash all the science that doesn't agree with them, or simply ignore it altogether (or worse, spin it, like with the mummies).
You know as well as I do that low-carbers aren't eating only grass-fed meat. When they get pushed into a corner, they say that, but you just told a poster to consume a heavily processed hot dog, as if it's health food as long as he doesn't eat the refined bun.
Nobody even needs studies to show that grain-based diets aren't the cause of obesity and diabetes! It's as plain as day without studies. (But, of course, there is the exhaustive China Study for anyone who really cares about science).
The meat-advocates have to work REALLY hard to point the finger at grains/starches, rather than the unhealthy meat and fat based diet they are advocating, and many are backed by the food industry or biased Dept of Agriculture.
But they're successful because it's what people want to hear - good news about their bad habits -eat lots of fat and meat.
Just think about it! It wasn't the introduction of whole grains into the Asian diet that started turning their health the other direction. They already ate whole grains and starches. Common sense says that can't be the culprit.
LS at March 26, 2012 8:43 AM
"For solid, decades long research on what very health traditional populations have eaten, see the Weston Price Foundation website. Weston Price, an early 20th century dentist, found that healthy traditional populations did eat meat, fish and poultry, far more than just as condiments. They also ate small amounts of fermented grains and dairy but those were more the condiments, not the meat."
Yes, he was a dentist. That's about all anyone can say. His "research" isn't credible. He had this romantic bias about natives. He wasn't a scientific researcher.
Yet, T Colin Cambell, as well as all the legitimate Chinese researchers involved in "The China Study" don't know what they're doing. Let's go with the observations of a dentist over their conclusions. Does that really make sense?
LS at March 26, 2012 8:49 AM
"Yet, T Colin Cambell, as well as all the legitimate Chinese researchers involved in "The China Study" don't know what they're doing. Let's go with the observations of a dentist over their conclusions. Does that really make sense?"
Weston Price was a diligent researcher who studied hundreds of traditional populations. Yes, he began as a dentist who noticed the huge difference in oral health between his modern patients and the indigenous populations he treated and was inspired to find out why. Note: he didn't study populations that were subsisting, but ones that were thriving.
Subsistence isn't the same as thriving. My Irish ancestors subsisted largely on potatoes because they were poor and that's all they had. That they survived doesn't make their diet optimal.
For years I ate whole grains and legumes with veggies and occasional fish and chicken. It seemed a healthy diet but over time I gained weight and ended up pre-diabetic. Last year I switched to a different diet - meat/fish/poultry with plenty of vegetables and smaller, condiment sized portions of grains, fruit and dairy and the weight is coming off and the blood sugar is going down.
I work with a nutritionist who is also an internist. This doctor got out of decades of practicing traditional medicine when he realized that diet was creating most of the modern ills he treated. I respect his vast experience, learning and research and he does not advocate a vegetarian diet, quite the opposite.
RationalReader at March 26, 2012 9:16 AM
I don't accept that primitive populations were thriving as well as large, civilized and cultured populations, such as the Irish. At any rate, you can be sure that the low carbers would entirely dismiss Price's work today as "observational" if it didn't support their viewpoint.
They will either ignore or dismiss this exhaustive study for the same reasons:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/health/research/red-meat-linked-to-cancer-and-heart-disease.html?_r=1
A vegetarian diet isn't what Cambell, Esstelstyn, Ornish and others advocate either. Plenty of vegetarians are unhealthy because being vegetarian doesn't mean you're not eating lots of refined crap, and/or dairy products.
They advocate a plant-centered diet with limited, (or no) meat products, oils, and fat. No processed/refined food. Only whole foods.
I still eat fish because I live where I can see the fishermen unload their catch almost onto my plate. Even if you believe eating meat is extremely healthy (despite growing evidence otherwise), eating the highly processed, hormone-laden, pink slime filled meat that our food industry is producing can't possibly conform to that ideal.
LS at March 26, 2012 9:37 AM
"eating the highly processed, hormone-laden, pink slime filled meat that our food industry is producing can't possibly conform to that ideal."
No one here is advocating that it is. Please don't confuse the issues.
Eating moderate amounts of grass fed red meat and favoring pastured poultry and wild caught fish and having plenty of fresh vegetables is not the red-meat diet that "growing evidence" is demonstrating is bad for us. That's exactly the problem here. You are comparing apples and oranges. A big plate of corn fed steak and fries is a dietary disaster, yet that is exactly what is being tested in these studies on the evil of red meat.
RationalReader at March 26, 2012 9:49 AM
"Eating moderate amounts of grass fed red meat and favoring pastured poultry and wild caught fish and having plenty of fresh vegetables is not the red-meat diet that "growing evidence" is demonstrating is bad for us. That's exactly the problem here. You are comparing apples and oranges. A big plate of corn fed steak and fries is a dietary disaster, yet that is exactly what is being tested in these studies on the evil of red meat."
That may be true, but it works the same way with grains/starches, as you see from the McDougall post above. Feeding people highly refined breads and sweets, then announcing that "starches are what cause obesity and diabetes" isn't accurate either.
That is my main message: Whole grains and starches are not bad for you. Amy preaches this tirelessly here, while recommending heavily processed meat, but it's just not based in reliable science or history.
Frightening people away from eating healthy brown rice or a plain, innocent 70 calorie potato is absurd. These are not the bad foods that lead to obesity - not as long as you don't load them with fats and oils. The meat and dairy industry just wants people to think that, and they go to great lengths - funding multiple studies - to convince us that it's the grains/starches that must be limited, not the meat, oil, and fat.
Who is making money off that? Follow the money. The industry has a vested interest in pointing the finger towards grains/starches and obscuring what's really taking the toll on our health.
LS at March 26, 2012 10:05 AM
"Healthy" oils is another fallacy. Olive oil only has a trace amount of Omega 3s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbALgjmZUek&feature=relmfu
LS at March 26, 2012 10:09 AM
Esselstyn on abolutely no oil. If no one reading this thread considers a word I've written, at least consider doing away with oil. It's in almost everything in our diet and extremely calorie dense. Remove it, and you'll almost certainly lose weight and be much healthier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_o4YBQPKtQ&feature=relmfu
LS at March 26, 2012 10:16 AM
"That is my main message: Whole grains and starches are not bad for you. Amy preaches this tirelessly here, while recommending heavily processed meat, but it's just not based in reliable science or history."
You're right that there is a huge world of difference between whole grains/legumes vs refined grains, just as there is a world of difference between pink slime and a grass fed hamburger. So we can agree on that!
I think where we seem to be rather passionately disagreeing is:
1. On the amount of whole grains/legumes that is optimal (lots vs. small amounts - I differ from Amy in this regard.) But I do not do well on a predominantly whole grain & legume diet. Years of experience bears that out. Maybe my system is different than yours.
2. The role and type of red meat (none vs. moderate amounts of grass fed.)
RationalReader at March 26, 2012 10:21 AM
"Esselstyn on abolutely no oil. If no one reading this thread considers a word I've written, at least consider doing away with oil. It's in almost everything in our diet and extremely calorie dense. Remove it, and you'll almost certainly lose weight and be much healthier.
Which oil? Numerous studies have shown the benefit of olive oil. On the other hand, the majority of oil used in America is derived from grains or nuts and has way too much polyunsaturated oil and Omega 6.
RationalReader at March 26, 2012 10:24 AM
Everyone must find the balance that works for them, RationalReader. Among those following plant-based diets, some can't tolerate legumes, or whole wheat (gluten), or certain combinations of foods. There is a lot of flexibility in a plant-based diet to find the optimal way to eat. There is even room for moderate amounts of grass-fed meat or fresh fish. Where we may disagree is in the definition of "moderate".
I now eat fish maybe once a week, more in keeping with the way our ancestors ate meat on "feast days". They couldn't get it readily killed and conveniently wrapped up for them like we can.
I don't eat that many beans, but I love potatoes, and it's so nice to understand that these can be a part of a healthy, low-calorie diet.
Esselstyn on heart disease. He agrees about the small plaques. It's interesting to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYTf0z_zVs0&feature=related
LS at March 26, 2012 10:33 AM
"Which oil? Numerous studies have shown the benefit of olive oil. On the other hand, the majority of oil used in America is derived from grains or nuts and has way too much polyunsaturated oil and Omega 6."
Watch the link. Olive oil isn't much different from other oils and is basically empty calories. It has about 120 calories per tablespoon (and who uses just one tablespoon?). You might as well pile ice cream on your salad! There are much better, lower calorie sources for Omega 3s.
I suspect the olive oil industry is behind these studies of "healthy oil". It amazed me when I cut it out how much I was using and how many people insisted I "needed" it.
LS at March 26, 2012 10:39 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3100317">comment from LSWhole grains and starches are not bad for you. Amy preaches this tirelessly here, while recommending heavily processed meat, but it's just not based in reliable science or history
On deadline, just skimming here, but this is just a blatant lie. Just about every word in the sentence about except "but" and "or."
Grains are TERRIBLE for you. Again, read Wheat Belly by cardiologist William Davis.
Per Gary Taubes' massively evidence-supported "Why We Get Fat," it is carbohydrates -- sugar, flour, starchy vegetables like potatoes, apple juice -- that cause the insulin secretion that puts on fat.
Grain is exceptionally unhealthy -- especially, as Davis points out, the hybrid grains now grown. He details why. I'm busy on deadline. Go buy his book, LS.
Amy Alkon at March 26, 2012 12:53 PM
I'll buy "Wheat Belly" if you'll buy Esselstyn's book and watch "Forks Over Knives". Better yet, watch the video I linked to above, where he shows his patient's angiograms and the amazing widening of these very sick heart patient's arteries after following a plant based diet for only a few months. We can match one cardiologist against another, but the "Wheat Belly" guy doesn't impress me nearly as much as Esselstyn.
Amy, you also need to take an honest, open-minded look at who is funding much of this low carb favorable research - the Atkins Foundation. I suspect Feinman, that you linked to above, may be funded by the Atkins Foundation too. One of his studies is mentioned below, "Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders", where funding wasn't declared, but it was dedicated to Robert Atkins himself! Hardly unbiased research!
Per McDougall: "The Atkins Research. Deceit and Disappointment"
http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/2004nl/040500puatkinsresearch.htm
"I have spared no effort to locate and carefully read the scientific papers that have been published about the Atkins Diet. The ones that have received most public attention are those directly comparing the Atkins Diet to a “low-fat” diet. Of the nine research papers1-(9) I was able to obtain and review that directly compare the Atkins Diet with a “low-fat” diet, four 4,(6-8) were funded by the Robert C. Atkins Foundation. Other research papers funded by the Atkins Foundation were also located and reviewed; 10-12 as were several others on this topic with independent financial support.13-20 The funding for the third issue of the journal of Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders was not identified, but the entire edition was dedicated to the memory of Robert Atkins."
LS at March 26, 2012 1:15 PM
"Per Gary Taubes' massively evidence-supported "Why We Get Fat," it is carbohydrates --sugar, flour, starchy vegetables like potatoes, apple juice -- that cause the insulin secretion that puts on fat."
Again, this is only a hypothesis by Taubes, a science reporter, and it has never been proven. It won't be proven because it's laughably and demonstratively untrue!
Anybody looking at this even casually - at Asian populations, who have been living on a grain-based diet, then get fat when they start eating our Western diet - knows this cannot be true.
But "The China Study" itself flat out disproves the hypothesis. If grains are so terrible, then these populations living promarily on whole grain rice, noodles, and vegetables would be FATTER and SICKER than those who aren't. But that's the opposite of what the decades long "The China Study" found.
Sugar, white flour, refined grains are bad, sure, but don't throw in potatoes and rice. That's just not accurate. And certainly don't suggest that people are better off eating a processed hot dog than a bowl of brown rice.
LS at March 26, 2012 1:39 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3100471">comment from LSBut "The China Study" itself flat out disproves the hypothesis.
This is not just like shooting fish in a barrel -- it's more like C-4 explosive-ing fish in a barrel!
Here's Denise Minger DECIMATING "The China Study":
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
Have a low-carb, evidence-based day! (Unless your need to assert that you're right continues to get in the way of that.)
Amy Alkon at March 26, 2012 2:30 PM
And who is Denise Mingers? These are the people you're relying on for facts? Denise Mingers is not a scientist or a researcher. She's some kind of a self-taught "nutrition expert" and blogger. Yeah, let's believe her analysis over Cornell educated researchers and the many qualified Chinese researchers, who worked for decades on The China study. I'm sure they don't know half as much about their research as some college dropout like Denise Mingers!
There were something like 94,000 correlations to disease found in "The China Study." Most of the data was left raw because it would've taken years - and did take years - to analyze it all. They narrowed it down to only the most statistically relevant correlations and adjusted those. Mingers and others of her ilk try to make something out of the raw data and correlations without knowing the first thing about the data, the study as a whole, or research in general.
Sorry, I give more credence to the REAL researchers, who - on both sides (China and the US) concluded that more meat consumption correlated with higher rates of disease, and plant-based diets (including grains) correlated with less disease.
The head researcher in China states that clearly in "Forks Over Knives." This was an exhaustive study, performed by extremely qualified and respected researchers. I just don't understand why anyone would discredit all this research based on some blogger without a science degree.
LS at March 26, 2012 2:58 PM
I believe there's a correlation between disease/ weight and a traditional Chinese diet vs. a North American diet. What I fail to see is that meat is the culprit.
Instead, I would think that the culprit is partly a combination of more calories/less exercise. I'm not sure how well The China Study corrected for the increase in available food and the shift from an agricultural work day to something less active.
The second and I think more important cause is the amount of fast food (not just take-out -- I mean open the box/can/jar and heat stuff) eaten in a traditional North American diet, which during the time of The China Study contained a whole lot of extra fat AND sugar to make it taste better. What I find most compelling is that we keep removing the fat from these types of foods (and often add more sugar to improve taste) and instead of the population losing weight, they are getting fatter.
I'd agree that a lot of processed foods aren't good for you, but I do believe it's the carb-filler and bun in that hot dog that would be bad for you...not the protein or small amount of nitrates.
Niki at March 26, 2012 3:57 PM
Back in the early 80's when I was a young mother, my husband and I lived in a "spiritual community" with our young son and many other families (I've been into some interesting alternative lifestyles in my time.)
We all followed a lacto-vegetarian diet: whole grains, legumes, vegetables and fruits, some milk, yogurt and cheese. No eggs, fish, chicken, meat. Organic produce, unprocessed food.
The children of our group, including my son, were consistently paler and more anemic looking than children elsewhere in town, not a part of the group, who were raised on a Standard American Diet. Those other children may have had other dietary problems (fast food, sodas) but they looked pretty healthy.
Years later when I began feeding my son a diet that included animal protein he stopped looking anemic and had more energy.
When I introduced animal protein in my diet I had more energy too.
I cannot ignore the decades long experiences of my family. A vegan diet or even a lacto/ovo/vegetarian diet hasn't proved as good for us as one that includes animal protein with lots of vegetables.
LS, I agree with you that a low fat, high complex carb diet does not make one fat at all. Adding fats does - I have seen research that shows that fat + carbs is the golden path to diabetes. Fat + protein is not and I've proven that one too by eating a high fat paleo diet and watching my weight and blood sugar go down. (If anyone thinks low/no carb and high protein and fat makes you fat, look at Amy's picture. 'Nuff said.)
But based on the experience of my family, neither does high complex carb/low protein provide the energy and nutrient density of a paleo diet (or even my own presently modified "relaxed paleo" that includes minimal whole grains, potatoes and whole fat diary. Note: the only reason I don't eat strict paleo is because I like a bit of grain and potato and don't seem to have problems, as long as I keep the amount down.)
I've tried the China diet in several different variations over many years. It doesn't work for me. If it works for other people, great. They should eat that way.
RationalReader at March 26, 2012 3:58 PM
Niki, good points.
Exercise and activity level provide a tremendous boost to health. I'm betting that the individuals in the China Study were all very active: farming, bicycling to work, walking everywhere. This is why studies that compare 2 or more groups of people and only focus on one difference (such as diet) skew the results.
The French are notorious for fatty, animal foods, but in the past they exercised more, stayed away from processed foods including high fructose corn syrup and ate small portions and consequently remained skinny (I hear that's changed a bit as they adapt to American ways).
Americans are in dietary hell not because of meat but because of lack of exercise, too much food and processed culprits like high fructose corn syrup.
RationalReader at March 26, 2012 4:08 PM
"LS, I agree with you that a low fat, high complex carb diet does not make one fat at all. Adding fats does - I have seen research that shows that fat + carbs is the golden path to diabetes."
I totally agree with this. We can't isolate grains from the equation because, in the Western diet, we almost always mix grains with fat. We might have whole grain pasta, but then we smother it in cheese or oil. We could have a lean grass-fed burger, but we combine it with a refined white starch bun AND cheese. We have potatoes, but only if they're fried in tons of oil.
Yet, the low carbers would rather point the finger at the whole grains/starches rather than the fat or meat products, which are the more likely culprits.
There is too much evidence for anyone that really cares to look at it that heavy meat consumption isn't healthy - at least our highly processed Western meat.
The interesting thing is that, by promoting "Wheat Belly", Amy seems to acknowledge that the food industry has messed with and ultimately ruined our bread, so why would she accept that Big Food hasn't ruined our chicken, bacon, and burgers too? It's in the news nighty how many additives and fillers they are including, despite health concerns. That's just the tip of the iceburg. No matter what diet you lean towards, this isn't the meat our "Paleo" ancestors ate.
LS at March 26, 2012 6:02 PM
"Exercise and activity level provide a tremendous boost to health. I'm betting that the individuals in the China Study were all very active: farming, bicycling to work, walking everywhere."
Yes, but the question is whether being lean promotes being more active or does being more active promote being lean? Which comes first? Most Americans would probably be riding bikes and moving more too if they could rid themselves of the excess blubber.
I can attest that losing weight on a plant based diet - with healthy grains and starches - is easy without exercise. So is low carbing, simply because of the calorie deficit.
So, I think excercise isn't necessarily the be all/end all. It's dietary changes that make the most difference, and the legitimate research suggests that a plant based diet is much healthier than a meat-based diet.
LS at March 26, 2012 6:13 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3100681">comment from LSAnd who is Denise Mingers? These are the people you're relying on for facts? Denise Mingers is not a scientist or a researcher. She's some kind of a self-taught "nutrition expert" and blogger. Yeah, let's believe her analysis over Cornell educated researchers and the many qualified Chinese researchers, who worked for decades on The China study.
What crap. Feel free to detail any flaws in her work.
I know better than to be impressed by people's degrees. I read studies all the time by truly famous and respected researchers that have shit methodology.
I'm sorry I'm on deadline today and have to get my taxes done this week, because there's been just a ditch of shit posted here and I don't have time to deal with it.
Amy Alkon at March 26, 2012 6:23 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3100682">comment from Amy AlkonAll of Minger's work on "The China Study" here: http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/
Amy Alkon at March 26, 2012 6:25 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3100685">comment from Amy AlkonDr. Michael Eades on "The China Study":
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/
Amy Alkon at March 26, 2012 6:27 PM
"What crap. Feel free to detail any flaws in her work."
You and I both know that she could make up any crap about correlations..."-4 this and -20 that..." and neither of us could point out any flaws in her analysis. It could be total BS, but we're not scientific researchers, so how could we possibly know?
But I've read a cancer epidemiologist say that her correlations are amateurish at best and that Dr. Cambell, the real sceintific researcher, was very gracious even to acknowledge her naive efforts.
I've also read Dr. Eades rebuttal, a while back, and I found it pathetically lacking in substance. All he could reach for is how Cambell failed to mention that some studies were animal studies, or pick apart certain verbiage in his book, even though Cambell fully acknowledges that this was just one chapter - one study - that shaped an emerging whole view that plant-based diets are healthier. It was the culmination of a whole career, starting with him growing up on a dairy farm, and over time, realizing that the evidence strongly supported plant-based eating over meat-based eating. His book was not just about "The China Study" but his understanding of the whole picture, based on years of studies and scientific reasearch.
And this was further backed by Esselstyn, who Cambell had never even met beforehand, but who had been doing the research and clinical trials of real patients that backed a similar viewpoint.
Since Eades produces no clinical studies, and has performed no independent research, and isn't actually a scientist, it seems that his viewpoint should be viewed more skeptically by someone, like you, who claims to be "science based".
Cambell is the scientist. The Cornell, Oxford, and Chinese researchers are the scientists. It's not Eades, Taubes, or Denise Mingers. None of these people are scientists, so how can you claim that your view is "science based" when you're willfully choosing to ignore many of the findings of actual scientists in favor of those of reporters, bloggers, and those promoting their own book sales?
I know you're extremely smart, Amy, and I respect you. Eventually, you'll see through this. My skeptism on this particular subject has just grown more quickly than yours, but I have faith that you'll begin to question the spin that these non-scientists are trying to pass off as science.
LS at March 26, 2012 8:28 PM
When I switch off of grains and shift to a diet of meat, green vegetables and some fruit, I start to lose a lot of weight in one week.
R7 Rocket at March 26, 2012 8:34 PM
LS said:
You mean the observational study that used a questionairre? Trying to make conclusions from that? With no proposed mechanism that can be falsified? That study?
Do you actually know what a scientific theory is?
R7 Rocket at March 26, 2012 8:44 PM
You're losing mostly water weight at first, and depleting glycogen stores, but you will lose weight on low carb because you're cutting out plenty of calories by not consuming foods from the LOWER end of the calorie spectrum (a pound of potatoes is only 500 calories). Eventually, though, this will stop, as your calorie requirements decrease, and you'll plateau. So many low carb advocates are rather chubby. They never get actually thin because it's impossible to get that way eating unlimited quantities of saturated fat, rich meats, and high-calorie dairy products.
LS at March 26, 2012 8:49 PM
LS said:
Just because the government issues titles of nobility doesn't always make it so.
R7 Rocket at March 26, 2012 8:55 PM
"You mean the observational study that used a questionairre? Trying to make conclusions from that? With no proposed mechanism that can be falsified? That study?"
Yeah, but the dentist, Weston Price, is a genious for his observational studies. That's science?
This recent study involved thousands of participants for so many years - not just a few primitive tribes. I'd say it's something to seriously consider, not dismiss because it doesn't fit into a set agenda.
Dietary studies are inherently hard. Either you lock people away and monitor their food intake, or you must rely on self-reporting, but with enough participants, it's rather unlikely that the correlations are based entirely on false data. Why would meat eaters not report their meat consumption. If anything, it would be less, not more.
LS at March 26, 2012 8:57 PM
"Just because the government issues titles of nobility doesn't always make it so."
Doesn't make their opinions "science based" either. If you're going to base your view on science, then whether or not actual scientists are involved matters.
If the best your side can come up with is from non-scientists that might be a clue that it's unreliable.
LS at March 26, 2012 9:02 PM
"So many low carb advocates are rather chubby. They never get actually thin because it's impossible to get that way eating unlimited quantities of saturated fat, rich meats, and high-calorie dairy products."
The low carb advocates I know are not chubby. Not at all. But the ones you know are...
Are they drinking lots of soda with high fructose corn syrup?
Are they eating no vegetables?
Do they drive everywhere they go, even to the corner store 1/4 mile down the road?
Are they eating ALOT of fat to the point where it dominates their diet?
Are they eating alot of food, period?
Just pointing to someone who is eating meat and dairy and saying they are fat because of that proves nothing. What else are they doing?
Here's an interesting observation. Fifty years ago few people in America were fat. Look at the old photographs. But they ate meat and dairy. What was different?
People walked, played and exercised more.
Their portion sizes were much smaller.
No high fructose corn syrup in absolutely everything.
What did they have in common with the people in the China Study and the French?
They all walked, played and exercised more.
Portion sizes were smaller.
No high fructose corn syrup in absolutely everything.
Too much of any food isn't good. I've gotten fat on complex whole grain carb meals - I overate because I kept feeling like I was missing something (lo and behold when I added meat/chicken/fish to my diet those cravings disappeared).
I've gotten heavy when I got busy and didn't exercise or drove places where I could have walked. It took discipline but I made time to move my body and the weight dropped.
A healthy lifestyle is just that - a lifestyle. You can't isolate one thing and nail it as the culprit or the solution.
RationalReader at March 27, 2012 6:31 AM
You actually can isolate dietary factors. But how many studies linking meat consumption with disease will it take? Apparently, the number is infinite because LCers will always dismiss them entirely in favor of (often Atkins or meat industry) funded studies pointing the finger at lowly potatoes or grains.
Yet, if anyone watches the Esselstyn video (linked above), you'll see that he provides multiple angiograms of the patients he's treated, providing HARD, BLACK AND WHITE EVIDENCE that their arteries, which were previously clogged and narrowed, are dramatically opened after changing to a plant-based diet, sometimes after only a few months.
That's very compelling evidence. It's not like a study where we must debate flaws in methodology. Esselstyn acknowledges that cholesterol doesn't tell the whole story. You can have good cholesterol numbers and still have a heart attack. But these angiograms are much better predictors that heart disease is actually being REVERSED through diet.
Of the 18 very sick heart patients Esselstyn started with in his clinical study, ALL 18 survived the first 12 years of the study, and I believe 12 are still living today, 20 years afterwards.
Of course, if the low carb diet is truly healthy, they should be able produce similar results, shouldn't they? In fact, Eades could provide his own angiogram proving he has clean arteries. I bet Esselstyn can, even in his 70s.
When I was an LCer, it always bugged me how taboo it was to question Dr. Atkins health at the time of his death. Did he have heart disease? No, he slipped and fell on ice, end of story! How dare anyone question his health!
But, isn't that kind of relevant when choosing to follow someone's dietary advice?
In Eades own words...
"I’m betting my life that saturated fat is good for me and that carbs are bad. I eat a ton of saturated fat and very few carbs (unless I’m being a very bad boy as I was last night when I indulged in some of my granddaughter’s birthday cake). So, if Dean Ornish is right and I’m wrong, I could be in deep trouble and maybe live a dramatically shortened life. But I don’t think so. Why? Because the indications that the low-carbohydrate diet is the correct diet for humans comes from so many different sources. (And that’s not even counting my years of hands-on care of many thousands of patients on such diets.)"
Note how he touts the "thousands of patients" but offers no proof. NO PROOF. Doesn't that concern anyone, especially when it would be so easy? Just do a few angiograms, or show his own. Do a small clinical trial. Think how that would boost book sales if he could show the same kind of results from a high fat/meat-based diet that Esselstyn does with low fat/plant-based diet. Yet nothing. Nada. Why?
LS at March 27, 2012 6:57 AM
Feeding people highly refined breads and sweets, then announcing that "starches are what cause obesity and diabetes" isn't accurate either.
Two points, if raw grains are bad for beef as they cause fat buildup, and grain fed beef is bad for humans - then why arent grains bad for humans directly?
Second have you ever seen a store bought grain fed steak side by side with grass fed, no growth hormones steak?
One is fake blood red, or grey if you cut into it - the other is such a deep real red that it is practically purple in comparison
lujlp at March 27, 2012 8:31 AM
I don't know the answer to that, Luj. I'm not sure I necessarily believe that grass fed is even much better than grain fed, except to the extend that farmers who allow cows to roam freely and eat grass are less likely to process the meat with hormones, additives, and fillers, like the big beef manufacturers. It's an improvement over those practices, but we don't really know whether it's that much healthier, and the reality is that most people can't afford to only eat grass-fed beef anyway.
I'm just planning to avoid red meat altogether now. My husband and I watched "Forks Over Knives" and we're trying to center our diet around fresh vegetables, whole grains/starches (like brown rice and sweet potatoes), and occassional fresh fish (and organic chicken for him). And avoiding oil. We're trying to stick as closely to Esselstyn's diet as we can because we're convinced that his research, combined with that of Cambell, McDougall, Ornish, and other plant-based advocates, is more sound than those advocating high levels of fat and meat products.
LS at March 27, 2012 11:44 AM
Heart disease is entirely preventable. This is a good segment on Bill Clinton, Dr. Esselstyn, and preventing/reversing heart disease with the right diet.
"The Last Heart Attack". Dr. Sanjay Gupta CNN
http://sanjayguptamd.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/29/sanjay-gupta-reports-the-last-heart-attack/
LS at March 27, 2012 12:15 PM
"It could be total BS, but we're not scientific researchers, so how could we possibly know?"
Appeal to Ignorance. Bzzzt!
You should give up, right?
Then, LS, don't use the fallacy "appeal to authority". An "expert", or titled authority figure is not automatically right. After all, people of this stripe insisted on the whole food-group stuff in the '50s we laugh at today.
What an "authority" really has is the training to understand and present the solution to a problem. In so doing, he or she will do exactly the sort of thing anyone else would have to do to produce credible results: name the study methods and the factors which support conclusions.
That is exactly what Amy is backing. You should do that, too. Hmm?
Radwaste at March 27, 2012 7:17 PM
Rad, you obviously haven't looked at any of my links. But, you know, I don't contend to be an expert, and have only a reasonable skepticism towards anyone who purports to be a dietary expert, especially those unwilling to produce any clinical trials proving their dietary advice is, in fact, healthy.
But I suspect very few of us, who are rational, would not say that we have a very healthy fear that BIG FOOD is trying to kill us in exchange for huge profits.
The bulk of the meat products provided to consumers in this country is tainted - infused with fillers (like pink slime), additives, and hormones. And that, unfortunately, is what most low-carbers are eating - not grass fed, organic beef, but Wendy's highly processed burgers without the bun.
I grew up on a farm. We killed the cows/pigs we ate. I went to the slaughterhouse. I saw first hand what happens. When I go home to AL, I'm fine with my Daddy killing a cow in his field to feed me, just as I'm ok with my local fishermen catching a Hogfish or Grouper for me to consume (once a week or so). But that's where my trust in the food supply ends.
I've named the study methods and factors (Esstelyn's impressive clinical studies) which support my conclusions. Apparently, former President Bill Clinton, who is no intellectual slouch, agrees. I'm not saying it's beyond criticism, but I'd feel better if those criticizing could produce compelling clinical results of their own showing that a high fat/high meat diet is going to reduce my and my husband's cardiovascular risk, in the same way Esselstyn has done.
LS at March 27, 2012 8:31 PM
All I care about is what works for me. I've been reducing carbs significantly for the past year and a half while keeping my meat consumption stable (about twice the USRDA) and increasing my vegetable consumption. I'll eat any meat: steak, burgers, chicken, turkey, ham, venison, elk, salmon, swordfish, you name it. In the past year and a half I've lost 45 lbs. My blood pressure is 104/49 on a rest pulse of 65. Cholesterol and everything else is quite normal.
When I started this process, I had been on course to carboload my way into diabetes. The vascular distress on my lower legs was evident in my skin coloration, my feet would swell up if I spent too much time sitting and didnt sleep with them elevated, and I'd pass out after every meal, clearly sugar crashing. Today, I am alert throughout the day, my legs are fine and I simply feel a lot healthier. Carbs are the culprit, period.
MikeL at March 28, 2012 3:20 AM
Not all carbs are the same. I'll bet you weren't eating the kind of carbs I am - or the kind recommended on these diets. You were probably eating lots of refined bread products, sweets, and loading your healthier carbs with oil, cheese and butter.
The good news is that carbs like potatoes or brown rice are not disease culprits. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that rice (which Asian populations have healthily consumed for generations) or potatoes and corn (which many other populations have healthily consumed for generations) cause disease or obesity.
In fact, these populations had virtually no obesity or diabetes, while eating primarily starch-based diets.
So, it's not these healthy carbs/starches, at least. As long as you don't smother them in oil and fat, you can eat all the potatoes and whole grains you want and still lose weight. They're very low in calories.
The best part is that most people find these starches and grains extremely satiating too.
Bread, which is more calorie-dense, is something that should be consumed in moderation if you're trying to lose weight, and some, who are gluten-intolerant, do much better without it.
I have no issues with bread, but I only eat sprouted grain, pumpernickle or rye. Never white bread, or any with added sugar.
It's just common sense eating, and once you understand this, you realize that the rhetoric about ALL carbs being dangerous and fattening is absurd.
LS at March 28, 2012 5:31 AM
There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that rice (which Asian populations have healthily consumed for generations) or potatoes and corn (which many other populations have healthily consumed for generations) cause disease or obesity.
That statement is so erroneous that the karmic shift forced Bill Clinton to tell the truth today.
Unix-Jedi at March 28, 2012 2:07 PM
Well, look at Bill Clinton. He's lost 27 pds eating a plant, grain and starch based diet. For centuries, asians ate rice as the mainstay of their diets, yet they weren't obese.
Feel free to post the evidence that whole grains/starches cause obesity. There are some who THEORIZE that grains spike insulin and this causes obesity, but this hasn't been proven and the diets of McDougall, Pritikin, Essselstyn, Ornish, and others - as well as all their patients who have experienced dramatic weight loss and have been able to stop taking their diabetes and heart medications - would seem to thoroughly dispell this myth.
I eat potatoes and rice all day long now and have lost all the weight I wanted in the past month or so. Soon, I'll be at the weight I was when I graduated high school 30 years ago! It's not the potatoes or rice that cause obesity. It's the high calorie fat and oils we mix with them.
LS at March 28, 2012 2:38 PM
For centuries, asians ate rice as the mainstay of their diets, yet they weren't obese.
That's because they were barely able to keep from starving to death.
There are some who THEORIZE that grains spike insulin and this causes obesity, but this hasn't been proven
As usual, LS, you're smashing a lot of things you don't understand together.
Grains spike blood sugar (glucose). This (not what you said) has been proven time and again. You can prove it yourself with a glucose meter. The insulin that is released to take the spike of glucose down may, or may not spike, that's part of the bioregulation that gets out of whack.
spike insulin and this causes obesity, but this hasn't been proven
Yes, elevated blood glucose does that. It's proven.
and the diets of ... Ornish, and others - as well as all their patients who have experienced dramatic weight loss and have been able to stop taking their diabetes and heart medications - would seem to thoroughly dispell this myth.
The others I don't know. Ornish I do. Ornish I remember from 15 years ago, when he advocated a diet like you're touting. His recommended diet has changed dramatically since then - but very, very, very quietly. Towards much lower carbs.
It's easily checked with his older writings and books versus the current ones. It might even imply, nay, lead one to believe that there's some sort of truth involved.
I eat potatoes and rice all day long now and have lost all the weight I wanted in the past month or so
It's possible, that your biochemistry is allowing this. I won't tell you that your results are wrong. But I will ask you what are the results of your blood glucose in the morning before eating, before and after meals, and what is your A1C? That would be more useful info.
When you say you eat them "all day long", you're eating plain, cooked, potatoes and rice just by themselves? How much? How many calories a day does that equate to?
They never get actually thin because it's impossible to get that way eating unlimited quantities of saturated fat, rich meats, and high-calorie dairy products.
Unlimited? Yes, technically, you're correct there. Eat every waking moment, you'll gain weight eating meat and fat.
Unix-Jedi at March 28, 2012 3:07 PM
McDougall on insulin. Meat actually causes a rise in blood sugar too.
"One of the greatest distortions of the truth promoted by high-protein diet advocates is that protein causes little or no increase in production of insulin. However, research shows just the opposite. When fed in equal amounts (calories), beef raises insulin more than whole grain pasta, cheese more than white pasta, and fish more than porridge (Am J Clin Nutr 66:1264, 1997). Maybe as important is the fact that carbohydrates are very satisfying for our hunger drive. Potatoes produce twice the level of appetite satisfaction as beef or cheese (Eur J Clin Nutr 49:675, 1995)."
http://www.drmcdougall.com/res_high_protein_diets.html
"When you say you eat them "all day long", you're eating plain, cooked, potatoes and rice just by themselves? How much? How many calories a day does that equate to?"
No, I eat them roasted or steamed with vegetables and spices. They're extremely filling and low in calories. A pound of potatoes is only around 500 calories, so I could theoretically eat that many at one sitting and still have app 1000 daily calories yet to consume (of course, I can't eat that much, but I eat until I'm completely satisfied).
I'm not diabetic, but read some of the "Star McDougaller's" stories. Many of them are diabetic - or were before changing to this plant-based diet. They will tell you that it isn't the grains/starches by themselves that cause the problems. Their blood sugar may rise after a meal, but certainly as they have lost weight and reduced fat, their insulin sensitivity is greatly improved.
And, yes, through calorie restriction, high protein/low carb diets bring about the same weight loss and therefore the same improvements, which I don't dispute.
All I'm trying to make clear is that complex whole grains and starches, like potatoes and brown rice, shouldn't be feared by diabetics, or anyone worried about developing diabetes. As long as they're consumed without added fat, these foods don't cause or worsen diabetes or lead to obesity.
And it's not because asians were starving. How many obese asians do you really see, even in the US today? Even though they've begun eating our SAD diet, you'll still notice that most asians remain thin, certainly compared to Americans. The older asians are almost always thin and that's because they typically still consume diets based on rice, vegetables, and some limited meat or fish. How could that be if grains are so terrible?
I'm not asian either, so it isn't an adaptive gene or anything. If I (and thousands of others) can lose weight eating the same way as a rural asian, then it's not due to a cultural difference. The key is in their type of diet, which is extremely low in calorie density due to the grain and starch being the main base, as opposed to a diet of high calorie meat, dairy, and fat, like ours.
LS at March 28, 2012 4:30 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3106336">comment from LSJust so you know, LS, I don't have time to lay out the errors in this -- or much of the rest of what you've posted this week, but that doesn't mean you're posting things that are correct or science-based. I hope somebody else can do the debunking I'd like to. It's kind of a crazy time for me -- taxes, book, have to read six books in three weeks for two book festivals, plus a book a week for my radio show. End of April, I become human again.
Amy Alkon at March 28, 2012 4:40 PM
I understand, Amy, and I'm certainly no expert, and I'm learning a lot about this as I go along, and some of it isn't correct, I'm sure.
But I don't find these doctors (Esselstyn, McDougal, Ornish, etc) as easily impugned or discredited as you seem to. And I know now, from personal experience, that their diet works extremely well, at least from a weight loss perspective.
Actually, it's clear that BOTH diets work in that respect, and I now fully understand WHY they do, and more specifically, why low carb had become so frustrating and ineffective for me personally.
As a petite person, without a lot weight to lose, I simply could not have lost this weight on low carb because my calorie consumption was too high for my caloric needs.
I wasn't eating much, but what I was eating - rich meat and dairy products, combined with lots of oil and fat (which I was advised to increase, not decrease) put me way over my daily calorie requirements.
Setting aside health concerns about meat, this particular dilemma is something that needs to be addressed for the sake of anyone trying to reach goal weight on a low carb diet. They have to start counting calories at a certain point.
And, the thing is, unless they add in filling grains/starches, they're going to be feeling deprived again, which is the reverse of how most low-carbers view this diet.
No one wants to go hungry, especially when they've previously been satiated by rich, fatty, calorie-dense foods. Yet, if they don't begin eating lower calorie foods, such as grains/starches, and cutting DOWN on fat, their weight loss will inevitably stall, like mine did (and so many others). It has to. Calories still matter. Even Eades admits this, though rather grudgingly.
So, I don't see much of a solution except to stop villanizing ALL grains/starches. The modern low carbers started this approach (Atkins didn't from what I've read), and I suspect they've done so mainly for self-interest, rather than this being backed by truly credible science.
People are more likely to go low-carb if they fear all grains/starches, so this has worked extremely well for the low carb advocates' wallets. This needs to be cause for healthy suspicion.
Wheat, ie "Wheat Belly" - I don't know about that. I suspect most people who've had success cutting out wheat were either genuinely gluten intolerant or lost weight simply because the wheat products they were eating were heavily processed (wheat crackers, "wheat bread" that's not really whole wheat, sugary buns, etc). There again, where is the clinical evidence? What did Davis's patients eat before and after, and can he prove that it was the wheat causing their problems and not the processed food?
There are a lot of questions, and few definitive answers that can absolutely be relied upon in this debate.
But, today, I thoroughly read through Minger's China Study critique again, as well as Cambell's response to it, and why it was so flawed and ameteurish, so let me post this if you haven't read it. Mingers is certainly bright and funny, but I don't see how anyone can say she's up to his caliber as a researcher or reviewer of scientific data.
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html
LS at March 28, 2012 6:05 PM
LS:
McDougall on insulin. Meat actually causes a rise in blood sugar too.
There's really no point in trying to discuss this with you, as long as you keep demonstrating you don't understand anything about what you're saying.
Insulin != glucose.
That's quite frankly, the basic science we're talking about, and you don't understand that. At. All. Until you do, there's absolutely no point in trying to explain it to you. Your explanations to us are fatally flawed by the fact that right there, you don't understand.
Speaking of that... I said ", you're eating plain, cooked, potatoes" and you replied with:
No, I eat them roasted or steamed with vegetables and spices.
Then, that's yes. Not no. As in the exact opposite of what you actually said.
Spices aren't nutritive, and the other vegetables aren't really a factor here, but then you're basically just cooking them, then eating them plain. Right.
They're extremely filling and low in calories. A pound of potatoes is only around 500 calories, so I could theoretically eat that many at one sitting and still have app 1000 daily calories yet to consume (of course, I can't eat that much, but I eat until I'm completely satisfied)
If you're eating less than 1500 calories a day, yes, you're probably losing weight. The question is, are you doing it healthily? There's a lot to be said, and a lot debated about caloric restriction - but you need to understand - and I doubt you will by the fact you just admitted it without realizing it - that you're _really_ talking about "caloric restriction" diets more than carb/fat/protein diets.
All I'm trying to make clear is that complex whole grains and starches, like potatoes and brown rice, shouldn't be feared by diabetics, or anyone worried about developing diabetes. As long as they're consumed without added fat, these foods don't cause or worsen diabetes or lead to obesity.
Were you a doctor, you'd be at risk for malpractice for that statement.
First up, cooked potatoes are about the simplest carb you can get. It's not a "whole grain" nor is it "complex". Brown rice is, which means that it's barely digestable by human tracts. But it also causes a large rise in blood glucose, and someone who is diabetic is at risk when that happens. And yes, by basic biochemistry, raising your blood sugar leads to obesity.
Unix-Jedi at March 28, 2012 7:15 PM
As a petite person, without a lot weight to lose, I simply could not have lost this weight on low carb because my calorie consumption was too high for my caloric needs.
*facepalm*
LS, you simply do not understand what you're talking about, what the low-carb proponents are saying, and you do not understand the biochemistry involved.
If you've found a diet you're happy with, congrats, stick with it, but please stop trying to explain it.
Unix-Jedi at March 28, 2012 7:20 PM
Actually, I should amend my comment about:
For centuries, asians ate rice as the mainstay of their diets, yet they weren't obese.
Yeah, I got tied up in the lack of understanding of the mechanics.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanikaze
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onogawa
Unix-Jedi at March 28, 2012 8:52 PM
Amy:
I couldn't post the previous until I deleted the http:// in front of the links - kept directing me to refill in the "challenge question" (Which I had, and did repeatedly.) (Also, might want to label it "challenge question" just in case, might confuse people.
Unix-Jedi at March 28, 2012 8:53 PM
I'm not really trying to explain it to you, Unix. I linked to Dr. McDougall who explains it quite well, but you're apparently not interested in reading that.
For sure, I'm no expert in insulin or glucose, but McDougall has successfully treated hundreds of patients in his treatment center with this diet, many of whom are diabetic, so I'd say he knows a lot about it, and you're certainly not qualified to discredit him. Nor Dr. Esselstyn, who has gotten the very same results with diebetic patients.
If whole grains and plant starches were truly harmful to diabetics, McDougall's practice would've closed down way back in the 70s, and Esselstyn's diet would not be the choice of a former president, like Bill Clinton. Yet, here they both are, with plenty of diabetics (and past diabetics) who've lost tons of weight and swear by a plant-based diet.
You can discredit me, that's fine. Call me naive. Admittedly, I am on this topic, but I've opened up my mind here. I'm learning and questioning. Why are you so biased that you won't even consider that a plain potato might actually be good for you?
And, of course, this is about calories! That's my point above. It's all about calorie density. Basically, low carbers are eating from the HIGH END of the calorie-density spectrum (meats, oils, dairy, and fat), and low fat, plant-based dieters are eating from the LOW END (veggies, starches, and whole grains).
That's why they BOTH work as far as weight loss goes. It's no secret. Look up the calorie density tables and you'll understand why.
Each diet is substantially reducing calories. The low carbers are eating virtually nothing from the lower half, and the low fat dieters are eating almost nothing from the upper half. (Note: This is TRUE low fat, not the low fat of 30% or more of calories that the low carbers like to compare their diet to in studies).
And weight loss, in itself, and no matter how it occurs, is healthy, especially for people who are morbidly obese. No question about that. Every obese person will get a better bill of health all the way around just by losing weight no matter what diet they're on.
But, once a person gets closer to their goal weight, low carbers tend to stall out because they're eating more calories than the low fat dieters. It's that simple.
And, in the beginning (when I first heard of low carb), this was supposed to be the point when you were able to add back in healthy whole grains. Do you remember that? I do. And it would actually make sense - because whole grains are very filling yet low calorie. Atkins even suggested barley.
But, somewhere along the way, the rhetoric became that ALL grains and starches, whole or not, refined or not, were the root cause of obesity and diabetes.
And I honestly question where that concept suddenly sprang from. It doesn't, so far as I can tell, come from any definitively proven and independently conducted science-based research. And it flies in the face of what we know about civilizations eating whole grains/starches for at least the past 10,000 years.
And it isn't even close to the conclusions the researchers came to in the exhaustive China Study.
Yet, we are asked to believe that all this is wrong. In fact, for lack of anything better, the low carbers tout the critique of some internet blogger, with no science background, to proove that it's all bogus and not "science based". Say what?
Denise Mingers would have us believe that the esteemed researchers from Cornell, Oxford, and China are SO STUPID that they'd publish the China Study in peer reviewed journals when their conclusions were so transparently flawed that even an online blogger with an English Lit degree could easily debunk them.
Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't to me. And I intend to keep questioning, which is a good and healthy response when being given what seems to be misleading information.
LS at March 28, 2012 9:04 PM
Here's a video about calorie density with nutritionist Jeff Novick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gTLpTq1nQk
LS at March 28, 2012 9:19 PM
and you're certainly not qualified to discredit him.
Well, if I'm certainly not, I guess insulin and glucose are the same or something. Whack it in half!
If whole grains and plant starches were truly harmful to diabetics, McDougall's practice would've closed down way back in the 70s, and Esselstyn's diet would not be the choice of a former president, like Bill Clinton.
You made a statement, but there's nothing logical there about it. Our bodies can tolerate a lot - we're omnivorous. But right now, we're killing people with statins, and that's the current great way to do things.
"Would not be the choice..." LS, even you should realize that all you're doing is arguing (weakly) from authority. Needless to say, Slick Willy's idea of "good idea" usually is the polar opposite of mine.
Nothing you said proves anything, and every time you tried to prove something, you demonstrated that you didn't understand what you were saying. Like...
Each diet is substantially reducing calories.
No. They are most definitely not. Your gut is not a bomb calorimeter. The low-carb plans don't "limit" calories, because there's nowhere near as much need. And yet, people tend to lose large amounts of weight, without restricting calories.
This is pretty substantial proof that calories aren't the sine qua non - the essential condition - that we're looking for.
Every obese person will get a better bill of health all the way around just by losing weight no matter what diet they're on.
Not true. If they "lose weight" but gain MORE and more immediate health issues,then they're not "better off". (I suppose that could be argued.)
And if the diet introduces more, harder to deal with issues, then no, it's not a good idea.
And, in the beginning (when I first heard of low carb), this was supposed to be the point when you were able to add back in healthy whole grains. Do you remember that? I do. And it would actually make sense - because whole grains are very filling yet low calorie. Atkins even suggested barley.
No. It made sense because the issue was blood glucose and it's control. As you lost weight, you could increase your intake of carbs, increasing your blood glucose accordingly, in some measure, to slow weight loss and hold your weight stable.
You don't understand. Atkins specifically talked about titrating the carbs in, and what kinds they were, and learning which ones and how many you could eat, and stabilize the body's system.
But, somewhere along the way, the rhetoric became that ALL grains and starches, whole or not, refined or not, were the root cause of obesity and diabetes.
According to people who didn't understand what people were saying, yes. And to some degree, as for example, Davis says, because of his research, specifically. But that's normally not the "rhetoric", other than people realizing that there's often no point in eating carbs, and a lot of downsides.
And it flies in the face of what we know about civilizations eating whole grains/starches for at least the past 10,000 years.
Who were lucky to live to 30. Penicillin was a helluva discovery. It doesn't "fly in the face", we've got a track record, and furthermore, we can often find that the more grains those civilizations ate, the more heart disease was seen. Most every mummy in Egypt has plaque that can be seen with CT scans. (Eades, I think, are the ones who pointed that out.)
Denise Mingers would have us believe that the esteemed researchers from Cornell, Oxford, and China are SO STUPID that they'd publish the China Study in peer reviewed journals when their conclusions were so transparently flawed that even an online blogger with an English Lit degree could easily debunk them.
Your premise is, well, yeah, Yes, I agree. I've seen stupider stuff from such Universities, where the conclusion was picked long before the research was started. So, yep, say it that way, and if the shoe fits, wear it.
Because this is the thing about science. It's if you're right or wrong. not how many letters you have after your name. It's if the math works out.
And you know, quite often, that's how it works.
If the online blogger with a English Lit degree's math is right, then they win at the Science game. Hiding behind credentials is a strong proof that in fact, you're not sure you can win with facts.
And I intend to keep questioning, which is a good and healthy response when being given what seems to be misleading information.
That would be good, except you have to learn to have a framework to ask the questions in. Learn to do the math, so to speak.
At least, for pete's sake, learn the difference between glucose and insulin if you're gonna keep pontificating. That's the most glaring of your errors.
Unix-Jedi at March 28, 2012 9:40 PM
"Most every mummy in Egypt has plaque that can be seen with CT scans. (Eades, I think, are the ones who pointed that out.)"
Yes, and he conveniently left out a hair analysis that I learned about from reading McDougall. The hair analysis proved that the mummies actually ate a western-type diet of meat and rich (fatty) foods. Eades would have you believe that grains killed them, but that's not true, Unix. Eades apparently ommitted the information that conflicted with his bias.
Check out the hair analyis yourself. I believe there's a link to it from this article:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2011nl/may/egyptian.htm
"The low-carb plans don't "limit" calories, because there's nowhere near as much need. And yet, people tend to lose large amounts of weight, without restricting calories. "
Did you watch the calorie density video? It's quite clear that both diets limit calories, just in different (and some similar) ways.
Let's say you're a 250 pd woman. Now, you likely didn't get there eating very well - probably you've been eating lots of high-calorie sweets and processed foods.
Either one of these diets will help you lose weight because:
1) The rules of each diet pretty much mandate that you eat REAL WHOLE FOOD. No more chips, sweets, refined flour, processed junk, etc.
2) Although it seems that low carb isn't restricting calories, if you remove all starches, grains, most fruit, and bread, plus all processed junk, you most certainly are restricting calories - at least a lot of the calories that this 250 pd woman was previously consuming.
She just doesn't notice this because the rich food she's allowed to eat is satisfying, and she's told this is "unlimited", which is psychologically satisfying.
Plus, you're right - she can't really eat enough of the rich food at this point to worry about calories. Even "unlimited", a person can only eat so many steaks and eggs.
So, let's say, she loses 100 pds. Now, she's down to 150, and she's totally sold on this diet because it seems really easy. But she's only 5'4, and the last weight she remembered really looking good at was 120, so she still has 30 pds left to lose.
But around this point, the weight loss slows way down. She doesn't understand. The first weight dropped like lead, but now, she's struggling to lose even 5 pounds and bouncing up and down, always ending up around 150.
Why would this be? She's still avoiding all the "bad foods". She's eating her meat, dairy, and fat like she was before.
The answer is obviously calories. At 150, she's eating just enough calories to maintain that weight, but NOT LOSE weight because her calorie needs are much less now than when she first started, at 250.
A lot of people give up at this point, and actually regain much of the weight they lost, but this doesn't need to happen. If the low carb advice wasn't so anti-calorie counting, anti- grain, and pro-fat, she could easily be helped through this plateau by lowering her calorie intake.
And one of the easiest, and most satiating ways would be to add in some low-calorie grains or a potato.
But, OMG, no!!! A potato is like eating straight sugar. She might as well pour a cup of sugar down her throat!
Does this really make sense? Let's examine that premise for a moment:
My google search tells me that a potato is around 130 calories. A cup of sugar is over 700.
Now, I could do an experiment on this, if I wanted, and I could replace my daily plain potatoes with a cup of sugar. I really don't want to do this because the outcome is fairly obvious, at least to me. I'd gain weight if I did that, not lose weight, as I am eating the potatoes.
So are potatoes really the same as sugar? Do our bodies really process these two the same way?
I don't have a science degree, it's true, but I'd guess, just from a common sense perspective - and observing all these people eating potatoes, losing weight, and reversing their diabetes - that the answer has got to be NO.
There's something about the potato that makes it decidely different from plain sugar, so suggesting that they are basically the same is irresponsible, and that's my issue with the low carbers. They didn't have to start scaring people away from good carbs.
LS at March 29, 2012 5:50 AM
"If the online blogger with a English Lit degree's math is right, then they win at the Science game. Hiding behind credentials is a strong proof that in fact, you're not sure you can win with facts."
Yeah, but she's not right, as Cambell's gracious and detailed response shows. She made a valiant effort, for sure, and it would make a great movie...she's just the kind of plucky, self-taught heroine that you'd cast against the evil researcher. But, well, it's not a movie, and it's absurd to assume that she has the skills to "decimate" a study that has already been peer-reviewed.
I mean, like I said, it's ridiculous to think that all the researchers involved - from Oxford, Cornell, and China - knowing they had a weak study, with totally unsupported conlusions, would even publish it.
Instead, as Cambell says, they decided to publish all their data, even the thousands of raw correlations, in case future researchers wanted to use them, but they also knew this might open up an opportunity for people with biased agendas to distort that data.
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html
LS at March 29, 2012 6:16 AM
I mean, like I said, it's ridiculous to think that all the researchers involved - from Oxford, Cornell, and China - knowing they had a weak study, with totally unsupported conlusions, would even publish it.
I've seen "homeless" people on exit ramps that beg less than you do, LS.
It's been explained to you several times why that's a fallacious way of arguing and reasoning.
It's ridiculous to think after being specifically called out on that, that you'd continue. But yet, you do.
Eades would have you believe that grains killed them, but that's not true, Unix.
That's not what the Eades said.
But let's look at your article.
Oh, I wish I hadn't.
... Hatshepsut,... identified an obese woman with tooth decay.
Tooth decay is caused by bacteria that feed on... sugar and other simple starches.
Mummified geese were found inside her tomb, reflecting the rich food consumed by Hatshepsut and other royal Egyptians.
Possibly. So the royals might be bad examples. What of the "normal" Egyptians who were mummified, and who have gads of plaque?
(Oh, we need not examine *that*.)
Problems with the teeth are found in mummies. The most common abnormality is wearing down of the teeth by friction caused by eating gritty bread made from flour contaminated by windblown sand and other abrasive materials from the soil and grinding stones.
Doesn't seem to be proving a low carb high fat intake there, either.
Gallstones have also been found in mummies. Almost all gallstones found in modern people are due to the super-saturation of the bile with cholesterol from consuming meat, eggs, and dairy products.
That's begging the question - but I understand why you don't understand that. It's unlikey that that's the case, and while that's the current medical consensus (along with the lipid hypothesis), both show major failings that the Eades and Davis and Lustig have been demonstrating for some time.
Throughout all of recorded human history, almost all people have lived on diets based on starches:
That's not even close to being correct.
as a result, atherosclerosis, obesity, and tooth decay were rare to unknown.
*boggle*.
Well, if this is the pap you're reading unquestioningly, I see your problem.
Although it seems that low carb isn't restricting calories, if you remove all starches, grains, most fruit, and bread, plus all processed junk, you most certainly are restricting calories
No, you're not. Assert it all you want, you'll still be wrong. You can eat "to excess" of fat and protein, and "lose" weight (if you've got a mostly normal system), because of how those are processed. Eat "to excess" of rice (which is a very complex carb) and you'd better work on your foot-stomping to drive out demons from the sumo ring.
But around this point, the weight loss slows way down. She doesn't understand. The first weight dropped like lead, but now, she's struggling to lose even 5 pounds and bouncing up and down, always ending up around 150.
When you got to "she doesn't understand" I figured you're talking about yourself.
But what you're doing there is mismashing together all sorts of thoughts with no logical progression, and calling it thinking.
What happens, when you plateu, you're hitting a "setpoint". Your system is coming to equilibrium. That may not be where you'd like it to be - that's another question entirely from the question of "is this healthy."
Meth addicts are skinny. They're not healthy.
Jim Fixx - you should remember him - ate as you advocate, ran miles per day, and dropped stone cold dead of atherosclerosis. All his arteries were almost totally blocked.
And this is where you're really lost, LS.
The question here isn't just about diet, but about what are the markers for good health? What matters to your health?
From the post: what matters is not your LDL cholesterol number but whether your particles measure out to be large and fluffy (good!) or small and dense (bad!).
What's your LDL size? What's your A1C? What's your HDL/LDL ratio?
If you're "skinny" but your arteries are clogged, you're not healthy. If you're "skinny" but you're developing cirrhosis from fructose (getting more common in diabetics), you're not healthy.
You might want to look at just weight as a single measurement, but it's only part of the picture.
it's ridiculous to think that all the researchers involved - from Oxford, Cornell, and China - knowing they had a weak study, with totally unsupported conlusions, would even publish it.
But you don't understand science or people.
Go, on, whack it in half, and you're going more than a mile a minute!
Unix-Jedi at March 29, 2012 8:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3107586">comment from Unix-JediThanks, Unix -- well-said and much-appreciated.
Walter Willett from Harvard just came out with some serious dumbassery on red meat. Dr. Barbara Oakley is an engineering professor who writes brilliantly on psychology -- in large part because she is not doctrinaire. I don't care what a person's pedigree is; and frankly, people can sometimes decide they know things simply because they have some pedigree and not look too closely or scientifically.
Amy Alkon at March 29, 2012 8:40 AM
Fine, this is pointless. You're throwing out wild assertions, all of which I can't possibly fact check at the moment.
But I don't see where this Jim Fixx ate exactly like me, and if he did, perhaps he only started eating healthier after giving up his two pack a day smoking habit. The damage to his heart may have already been caused by his smoking, or many other factors. Talk about throwing out completely random and unsubstantiated associations!
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/24/science/the-doctor-s-world-james-fixx-the-enigma-of-heart-disease.html?pagewanted=1
You are just as blindly following Eades and Davis, without even asking why did Eades would leave out the mummy hair analysis. Doesn't this worry you since you're so concerned with being science-based...that he would leave out scientific information that doesn't quite fit with his point of view, and leave the impression, at least, that grains, starches, and fruit led to diseased mummies?
And, if these doctors have all the answers, where are the CLINICAL STUDIES of their patients? Knock McDougall, Esselstyn, Ornish, all you want, but at least they provide those for people (like Eades) to cheerypick apart.
In fact, Eades has had decades supposedly helping "thousands of patients" avoid heart disease with this extremely healthy diet of protein and saturated fat, yet where's the hard proof?
All you have are his word...and his biased critiques of other doctor's work...plus his rebuke of every scientic researcher that doesn't agree with him. Nevermind that he totally ignores some studies and glaringly ommits critical info from others. He's got to be right, and they got it all wrong. The lipid profiles, the China Study...just about every researcher who isn't on board with eating loads of fat and meat is wrong, and this doctor, who is basically only known for writing diet books, is flawlessly accurate. Wow, it's pretty amazing how much smarter he is than everyone else!
And, no, that example was not me. I weighed under 110 pds most of my life - even through 2 pregnancies - and had awesome cholesterol numbers before I began low carbing. I actually don't recall what they were, because they were never an issue for me, but I remember my doctor being so impressed about 6 years ago and asking me how I ate...which was, before my 5 year foray into LC, primarily plant-based with meat only when I dined out (though I ate cheese and dairy).
After I began LCing, I was retested, and doctor said my LDL cholesterol was a little too high, by 30 pts or so I think. But I was assured by the LCers that this was "normal" for a year or so at first. That it would drop the longer I low-carbed.
I haven't been retested again, and I want to give this WOE at least 3 or 4 months before I do, but, based on the results of Esselstyn's study, as well as all those angiograms of his patients who are eating this way, I don't expect to be riddled with heart disease.
I only ever had 10 pds or so to lose, most of which I realized I actually gained while low-carbing, which is the silliest thing ever. But now, I understand why - I was eating rich, fatty, high calorie food, which I never did before. Duh!
In fact, it seems that the true test of a diet would not necessarily be what it does to an unhealthy, obese person, but what it does to an already healthy, thin person, like me.
It's pretty easy to show impressive improvement in a 300 pd person who reduces the enormous load of fat they're carrying around. But that doesn't prove the diet itself is healthy either.
LS at March 29, 2012 8:57 AM
I've been waiting to read Eades (I'm sure) brilliant bash of the Harvard red meat "dumbassery" study. "Correlation doesn't prove causation", and so forth. Of course, he must be right because there are absolutely no credible studies, recent or past, that link heavy meat consumption to disease. And every researcher out there (except those funded by the Atkins foundation or meat industry) somehow manages get the confounding factors all wrong, failing to adjust them properly.
I mean, really, what is wrong with our educational system that we produce such idiot scientists and researchers at even our top institutions? They should just consult with Eades and save themselves the fancy Ivy League degree.
LS at March 29, 2012 9:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3107632">comment from LSIt's an observational study, and some woman named Zoe...Harcomb...I believe, took it apart very well. Taubes, too, did a debunking of it, if I remember correctly.
LS, you are completely attached to this animal rights nutter's advice, which is not based in science but in his ideas that it's mean to eat animals. I was going to post on the crapthink of the Harvard study (I'm sure you're already impressed senseless because it came out of Harvard), but I have been a bit snowed lately.
Amy Alkon at March 29, 2012 9:34 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3107641">comment from Amy AlkonHere are my notes (from an email to somebody who wrote me) and some links from a blog item I never got around to writing up and posting, "Cohort Studies Are Bad For You: Red Meat Is Not":
Amy Alkon at March 29, 2012 9:36 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3107661">comment from Amy AlkonTaubes post on this:
http://garytaubes.com/2012/03/science-pseudoscience-nutritional-epidemiology-and-meat/
Taubes' amazing piece from the NYT on observational epidemiology:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Amy Alkon at March 29, 2012 9:50 AM
Amy, I have no idea if McDougall or Esselstyn are animal rights activists. I generally dislike animal rights activists. I have to deal with nutty environmental, tree-hugging, animal-lover types like that here where I live, and with my business, so no, if they are, this wouldn't impress me at all. McDougall certainly doesn't push an animal rights agenda on his website.
What impresses me (besides my own results) is the results others have gotten, and the fact that these doctors have been doing this in controlled treatment settings for decades and showing their clinical results to the world.
What also impresses me is that their results match up with so many other studies, like The China Study, yet these doctors and Cambell didn't know even meet until decades later.
And, I could say you're just as biased on this, Amy. You're pretty enthralled with Eades and Taubes. Maybe this is warranted, I don't know. Maybe they're the smartest people ever, but they both are in the business of selling books promoting this high protein/high fat way of eating, so I don't know that they're the most unbiased sources when it comes to reviewing meat studies. There's a lot of self-interest there.
Of course, the same could be true for McDougall, but it doesn't seem like he's selling as many books as they are, so the financial conflict would be less. I mean, these doctors are selling a way of eating that few people believe they can actually follow, which says to me that if they were purely out for money, they'd change their advice to attract a broader audience.
Therefore, I believe these doctors are passionate about their low fat, plant-based diet being healthier, and they're willing to buck the system to spread that message.
McDougall has been consistently doing so for over 30 years. My gf has one of his first books from the 70s. She is obese, has tried everything (including low carb) and just started following this diet with me. She's lost 2 pds in 2 days, so we'll see. But she likes potatoes and whole grains. That's the key. Nobody can stick to a diet if they don't enjoy the food.
LS at March 29, 2012 10:01 AM
I've been following this discussion (and occasionally contributing) and find it fascinating that such different diets (high complex carb/low fat as LS is on now VS low carb, moderate/high protein and fat that Amy uses) can both be shown, through research studies and various individual's personal experiences, to produce weight loss. Is it possible that the complete answer is a bit more complicated?
I've run into a few sources who bring up the issue of FATS + CARBS as being the culprit that produces insulin resistance and consequent weight gain.
I think there's something to that theory and I'd like to see/hear of scientific studies proving OR debunking it.
I've lost weight recently on the Paleo diet and when I was a young woman maintained a slender, trim figure on the high complex carb/low fat (Macrobiotic) diet. I wasn't able to stick with the later more than a year, due to protein cravings. I now find the high protein/low carb diet much more energizing, less constipating, and less prone to creating binge eating than the other, so I'm sticking with my paleo cookbooks.
RationalReader at March 29, 2012 10:36 AM
LS:
But I don't see where this Jim Fixx ate exactly like me,
Maybe you weren't paying attention, but he did.
and if he did, perhaps he only started eating healthier after giving up his two pack a day smoking habit.
20 years before his death.
The damage to his heart may have already been caused by his smoking, or many other factors. Talk about throwing out completely random and unsubstantiated associations!
The (fatal) damage to his heart was due to clogged arteries.
This is what the subject of this post is about, and what you're totally missing. I don't know if you're missing it intentionally or not. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is the takeaway:
Eating a diet low in fats, high in starches, and exercising more than 99% of the people in this country, Jim Fixx dropped stone cold dead - jogging - of completely clogged arteries.
Smoking is bad, leads to clogged arteries - he was well past the time where that would have been stastically a problem. There may have been other factors, but more likely, his diet led to him having small dense LDL particles which formed a plaque.
You are just as blindly following Eades and Davis, without even asking why did Eades would leave out the mummy hair analysis.
No, I'm not. I hadn't low-carbed, being lazy, until about a year and a half ago. But I wasn't losing weight, which was annoying, but my blood pressure was down dramatically, my heart rate was down from 110 to 70. When I had a A1C test done, due to some ancillary issues. And it came back as 8.2.
It's now 5.5, by the way.
I'm not "blindly following" - I'm monitoring several factors, including my weight.
About 10 years ago, while I was eating a diet very low in carbs, I had a cholesterol screening done. Eating steak fried in butter, hamburger, fried chicken, fried eggs, and butter, I had a 3.9 ratio.
I am missing some datapoints to do more than that, but I can tell you that my blood pressure dropped to low normal - unless I eat carbs. My resting heartrate went from 100-110 to 70-80. My blood glucose went from high to normal.
That's not "blindly following", and if you're not monitoring your blood glucose, then you're missing a (easy) yet very important datapoint. Because there's 1 hormone that shows up time and time and time again that influences BP, heartrate, and deposits of LDL.
You're pretty enthralled with Eades and Taubes. Maybe this is warranted, I don't know.
You keep saying "I don't know" then postulating something as an appeal to authority.
You're very confused, LS. At the least.
You're attacking all these people, based on critiques, and it's very obvious you don't know how to read them, or read between the lines. You imply all sorts of nefarious deeds to your opponents, and all holiness to your idols.
(The same kind of hair analysis in this study determined that the Ice Man, preserved in a glacier of the Oetztaler Alps 5200 years ago, was essentially vegan.)
Funny, that's not what I recall.
"Analysis of Ötzi's intestinal contents showed two meals (the last one consumed about eight hours before his death), one of chamois meat, the other of red deer and herb bread. Both were eaten with grain as well as roots and fruits....
Hair analysis was used to examine his diet from several months before.
...
In 2009, a CAT scan revealed that the stomach had shifted upward to where his lower lung area would normally be. Analysis of the contents revealed the partly digested remains of ibex meat, confirmed by DNA analysis, suggesting he had a meal less than two hours before his death. "
-- Wiki's page on Otzi.
Vegan, huh?
I believe these doctors are passionate about their low fat, plant-based diet being healthier, and they're willing to buck the system to spread that message.
Passion's great, but it doesn't change facts.
Otzi wasn't vegan, he did eat a lot of carbs, mind you - which is indicated by... his tooth decay.
Unix-Jedi at March 29, 2012 10:41 AM
Interesting post, Unix-Jedi. A high carb/low fat diet may create weight loss (my point in a post above not yours...) but it also may give rise to other problems. We need to look at the whole picture.
LS, from what I can see of your earlier posts (December), you've only been on your high carb/low fat diet for a few months. Correct me if I'm wrong. Years ago I lost weight on a raw vegan diet (raw vegies, fruits, nuts...no raw animal products) and felt great...for a few months. After about 3 months of that I developed cravings and ending up binging on ice cream. Earlier in my life I was able to stay on a macrobiotic diet (whole grains, vegies, occasional fish) for about a year before I developed protein cravings. What matters - for all of us here - is how well our respective diets are working over a longer time period.
RationalReader at March 29, 2012 11:09 AM
Thank you, RationalReader. You are just that.
Unix, wants to suggest that some heavy smoker with clogged ateries, who may or may not have eaten a low fat plant-based diet (how do we know what he ate? Maybe he snuck twinkies in between his cigarettes) as proof that such diets cause heart disease, when even a cursury review of the Ornish and Esselstyn clinical results in decreasing plaque and clogged arteries disproves this.
So, I read Taubes and Harcombe, and my thoughts are:
1) They both sell books promoting meat-based diets, so they start from a strong bias.
2) Although they both try hard to discredit Willet, and the Harvard researchers, I haven't read the researchers' account of how they may have adjusted for confounding factors. Neither Taubes or Harcombe explain why these adjustments weren't performed or weren't satisfactory, just that they're not. So, once again, we must go on faith that these researchers are totally inept at doing quality research.
3) It struck me that so much effort must always go into discrediting these meat-linking-to-disease studies and/or finding other correlations besides meat itself, and that's because meat is almost always correlated! Wouldn't you feel more secure about the way you're eating if most studies didn't indicate a danger with red meat?
Sure, maybe it's solely because meat eaters are always heavy smoking, drinking, lazy asses, not the meat itself, but can you really be certain?
Taubes then maintains that we can because these experimental studies have been performed - comparing Atkins, The Zone, Mediterranean, and Ornish diets, and Atkins comes out ahead after a year.
Yet, only one of these diets is truly low fat (10% or less of calories) and plant based, like McDougall's, and that is the Ornish diet.
And this is what Ornish had to say about the flaw in that particular study:
"Ornish said that the current study was flawed because first most participants could not follow the Ornish diet, which requires that dietary fat be limited to 10% of the total calories. Instead, those on the Ornish diet in the study reduced their fat intake only to 30% (down from 35% in a typical American diet) after one year.
The second reason to say that the study was flawed is that when people strictly followed an Ornish diet, the dieters experienced drastic improvements. Ornish said a randomized controlled trial published earlier in JAMA already demonstrated that the study subjects lost 25 pounds after one year and better yet, half of the lost weight did not come back even after five years. That trial also showed that the Ornish diet reduced LDL cholesterol, the bad cholesterol by 40% without resorting to any drug, which was not seen in those on the Atkins diet in the current study."
So, the truth is that almost ALL the studies that have compared low carb diets to low fat diets were NOT low fat at all. They were all over 30% fat, which is almost the same as the standard American diet.
LS at March 29, 2012 11:28 AM
Rational Reader, I have only been eating this way for about 2 months or so. I actually kind of evolved slowly from cutting down on protein first, to then cutting it out altogether (because I noticed I lost weight), to reading a book by Neal Barnard about reversing diabetes on a plant based diet, to somehow ending up on McDougall's site, then reading about Esselstyn, The China Study, and watching "Forks Over Knives".
So, I've been pretty strictly following McDougall's diet for about a month, and I've lost around 8 pds, which makes me quite slim, and I don't need or want to lose anymore. But this is amazing after struggling for so long with those pounds - up and down and back and forth.
And this is by eating potatoes, rice, beans, veggies, and whole grain pasta! I'm actually eating MUCH MORE than before so I'm really satisfied. My energy level is higher, my skin has cleared up, and I know I can eat this way forever. It isn't hard for me.
If I crave some protein, I'll eat some fresh fish, but I haven't really had any cravings. Most days, I'm perfectly fine with what I have to eat, and I'm never feeling hungry between meals because they're so filling.
But I love this kind of food. I realize it would be harder diet to follow for someone who craves bacon or eggs. I thought I'd really miss cheese, but they told me I wouldn't after a couple of weeks - that it would taste greazy and oily if I tasted it after that, and it does!
LS at March 29, 2012 11:44 AM
RationalReader:
Is it possible that the complete answer is a bit more complicated?
In a way.
It's highly Dependant on the individual, their body, and their status.
Like LS there, merely dropping carbs works if you're not insulin resistant.
. I now find the high protein/low carb diet much more energizing, less constipating, and less prone to creating binge eating than the other, so I'm sticking with my paleo cookbooks.
Plus, as you get older, typically, IR increases.
But yes, you can do OK - for some values - on near-straight-carbs. For the short term, anyway.
Unix-Jedi at March 29, 2012 11:44 AM
Unix, wants to suggest that some heavy smoker with clogged ateries, who may or may not have eaten a low fat plant-based diet (how do we know what he ate? Maybe he snuck twinkies in between his cigarettes) as proof that such diets cause heart disease, when even a cursury review of the Ornish and Esselstyn clinical results in decreasing plaque and clogged arteries disproves this.
Because he was on EVERY TV SHOW SAYING WHAT YOU ARE.
some heavy smoker....
Don't talk about other people distorting, LS, or I'll retract my concession that you might be not doing this on purpose.
Fixx was a health and diet nut. Who was heavily publicized to exclude fats from the diet, and go onto the diet you're proposing now.
He was skinny when he died. So I guess he was healthy, huh?
I've pointed out to you that the "Ornish results" ain't the Ornish results. Put a year to them - because they've - and his diet - have changed. Very, very, quietly.
So, once again, we must go on faith that these researchers are totally inept at doing quality research.
Coming from someone who confuses insulin and glucose, one MIGHT want to put down the rocks. Those walls are fragile.
We don't have to go "on faith", they spend a lot of time going into exactly that.
You don't understand what they're saying, but that doesn't mean they didn't say it.
I've lost around 8 pds, which makes me quite slim,
Then, LS, you weren't overweight, you've just got body dysmorphia. You're not insulin resistant. And hey, good for you, great.
But in the meantime, go get the FBG and A1C tests. Get your LDL size checked.
I have only been eating this way for about 2 months or so.
It's always the recent recruits who are the loudest for any religion.
Unix-Jedi at March 29, 2012 11:54 AM
"Plus, as you get older, typically, IR increases."
That's probably because we get fatter. IR increases with weight, so keeping your weight down, however you choose to do it, is best.
Look at Esselstyn and Cambell. I mean they're in their 70s, still very thin, after following this diet for 30 years or so. I believe there are 135 "Star McDougallers" who've lost over 100 pds and kept if off, some for decades (and many were diabetic).
This diet doesn't lead to IR. Maybe some other so-called low fat diets do because they're basically eating "low fat cookies", "low fat chips" "low fat sweets", refined breads, oils, etc.
But, again, that isn't truly low fat.
LS at March 29, 2012 11:55 AM
"But I love this kind of food."
Sounds good LS! I feel it's so important that we enjoy what we eat. Sometimes it's easy to get caught up in just looking at the health angle.
Unix, you have a point about insulin resistance - and age. It makes a difference in terms of what types of diets are available to help. When I started the paleo diet at age 57 (or a slightly relaxed paleo in my case), I was already pre-diabetic. I get my fasting insulin checked at my doctor's every quarter or so and it doesn't take much of an increase of carbs/day to push those numbers back up. Granted, I don't eat low fat so when I add carbs its carbs+fat. But I was able to get away with way more when I was younger. :(
RationalReader at March 29, 2012 11:58 AM
This diet doesn't lead to IR.
LS:
That's a statement of fact. Back it up.
If that's your belief, state it so. Because what you are saying is at odds with hundreds of years of medical knowledge.
You keep making claims like that, then toss in a "well, I don't know..."
OK, fine. You said that eating (almost) straight carbs will not lead to insulin resistance. Back that up. Or did you mean, not low-fat, but caloric restriction?
Be specific and concise in your report.
RationalReader:
Getting old sucks, don't it?
Are you keeping an eye on your A1C?
Unix-Jedi at March 29, 2012 12:12 PM
"Then, LS, you weren't overweight, you've just got body dysmorphia. You're not insulin resistant. And hey, good for you, great."
You know, I haven't personally attacked you. You keep attacking me, rather mean-spiritedly implying I'm an idiot and don't understand things, yet never backing up one word of what you claim I don't understand with actual evidence, just innuendo and some anecdote about a runner who claimed to be eating a low fat vegan diet after SMOKING TWO PACKS A DAY FOR YEARS!
At any rate, it's one person, and one person doesn't prove anything.
Maybe I mixed up glucose with insulin. So what? I still get your premise. You think eating a bowl brown rice or a potato is as bad as eating plain sugar, that it's going to cause a blood sugar spike that will automatically lead to obesity or diabetes, or both. Well, go tell that to a former diabetic who is off all their meds after switching to this kind of diet. It's not that simple.
And I'm not "body dysmorphic". I'm just slimmer and more atractive now because I only needed to lose a few stubborn pounds, and I found out that eating loads of high calorie saturated fat wasn't helping me reach that goal.
That's my point: The closer you are to your goal weight, the less a high calorie/high fat diet is going to work. It works well for very obese people, but not so well for people with only 20-50 pds to lose.
Because it's high calorie, and calories still count when you're that close. If you can eat that way and still keep your calories low enough that you maintain or lose weight, then great, but most people eventually consume too many calories eating rich, fatty food than they need. Then, they stall or gain weight because there's no longer a calorie deficit.
LS at March 29, 2012 12:23 PM
"If that's your belief, state it so. Because what you are saying is at odds with hundreds of years of medical knowledge."
Yeah, right. You back that statement up. I've posted about a hundred links so far.
Hundreds of years? Type 2 diabetes hasn't even been an issue for most populations that long. It links with obesity, and most large, civilized populations were not obese, even when consuming diets based on grains and starches.
But feel to post your evidence.
LS at March 29, 2012 12:31 PM
You know, I haven't personally attacked you. You keep attacking me,
Not really.
In case you haven't noticed, you're on an advice column writer's blog.
Now, I'm not Amy, but part of being around here is, well, describing things as they are, usually telling people that what they're wishing for isn't true, and they need to figure out reality.
You're talking about losing eight pounds and changing your life for that.
LS, that's dysmorphic, unless you're under three feet tall.
I'm not personally attacking you, but I am pointing out when shit you say doesn't make sense. Yes, I'm sure that personally offends you, but that's because, well, the shit you said didn't make sense.
Instead of fixing it, and saying shit that makes sense, you say more shit that makes less sense, and then get more offended. Well, make more sense, not less, and I'd have less to "attack".
rather mean-spiritedly implying I'm an idiot and don't understand things, yet never backing up one word of what you claim I don't understand with actual evidence
Wait for it...
Maybe I mixed up glucose with insulin. So what? I still get your premise.
Lemme repeat to point out "shit you're saying that doesn't make sense."
never backing up one word of what you claim I don't understand
...
Maybe I mixed up glucose with insulin. So what?
That came from you within SECONDS of each other, and yet you never noticed the disconnect.
So no, you don't get my premise, because glucose and insulin aren't the same thing. How they interact is what we're talking about here, but the two are completely separate, and the fact that you don't understand that.....
DEMONSTRATES YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING FROM YOUR KEYBOARD.
They're related. But nowhere near the same, and it's an error that wasn't made once, or even twice, but repeatedly. Now, it may offend you that I scoff and say "This proves that you don't know what you're talking about." But you didn't correct the error, you just got mad.
just innuendo and some anecdote about a runner who claimed to be eating a low fat vegan diet after SMOKING TWO PACKS A DAY FOR YEARS!
Because it's a strong point against your diet. Jim Fixx practiced it, extolled it, and almost 20 years after stopping smoking, died with every coronary artery plugged like a toilet at the Ex-Lax convention.
He wasn't just a runner, he was an evangelist. He extolled exercise and "healthy diet". And it turns out, that eating like you're suggesting and exercise didn't help him. Maybe he didn't eat like he said you should, it's possible.
But there are lots of other studies that bring into strong question the risks of cholesterol with plant based diets. But there's no real point in trying to talk to you about that, when you don't understand what you're doing, you're still in the new-recruit-to-the-cult phase, and worse, unwilling to admit error phase.
According to you, you're eating less than 1500 calories a day. That puts you solidly into "Caloric Restriction" territory, and that way lies... well, we're not really sure yet.
But you've smushed CR into Low-Fat and are combining them along with your inability to lose 5-10 pounds with Low Carb and and and and and.
Wait. The way to figure this out is to break it out, and down. You try and isolate as much as possible. You're doing the opposite - possibly by mistake.
You're making absolute declarations that you've not proven you can back up. "It doesn't cause Insulin Resistance". Wait, what? "STOP CALLING ME STUPID!"... Well....
LS, look, it's all math in the end.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/350484-carbs-in-a-1500-calorie-diet/
"Based on the above formula, a 1,500-calorie diet plan should contain between 675 and 975 calories from carbohydrates. This amount is equivalent to 169 to 244 g of carbohydrates each day."
169 isn't that many carbs. The current average carb consumption in the US is 406g/day.
So you're at worst, eating 1/2 the "norm". And that might well be within the capacity of your pancreas to deal. But you haven't answered the other health questions.
How's your blood pressure? LDL size? A1C? FBG? Blood glucose during the day? Do you have arterial plaque and is it increasing or decreasing?
Those are important things to know, and so far, you don't seem to have investigated them.
And I'm not "body dysmorphic". I'm just slimmer and more atractive now
After losing 8 pounds. You're 5'4?
Ok, silly question time. If you did have dysmorphia, what would you say to that accusation?
Unix-Jedi at March 29, 2012 12:54 PM
You back that statement up. I've posted about a hundred links so far.
We've got a term for that in IT. GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Means if it's garbage, you can't get anything but that out. Or, in other words, the amount of links isn't as important as the data in them.
In the late 1840s, there was a treatment for diabetes, discovered, tested, and demonstrated by Apollinaire Bouchardat.
Bouchardat's treatment :
treatment of diabetes by use of a diet that excludes substances rich in carbohydrates.
Hundreds of years?
Got me. Sorry. Thousands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_mellitus#History
"Diabetes is one of the first diseases described with an Egyptian manuscript from c. 1500 BCE ... Indian physicians around the same time identified the disease ... The term "diabetes" or "to pass through" was first used in 230 BCE by the Greek Appollonius Of Memphis."
Type 2 diabetes hasn't even been an issue for most populations that long. It links with obesity,
Define "links with". Does that mean it is causative or correlative? Because I'm not sure what you mean by "links with", you can be diabetic and not be obese, or you can be obese and not diabetic. So explain that, if you would.
Unix-Jedi at March 29, 2012 1:16 PM
"LS, that's dysmorphic, unless you're under three feet tall."
Oh, so now you're not only an expert on diabetes but body dysmorphic disorder too? Somehow, I'm "sick" for wanting to look my best and not have 8-10 pds of extra weight?
I never said I was eating 1500 calories a day. I have no idea exactly. I was guestimating that if I ate a pound of potatoes, which is around 500 calories, I'd still have "app 1000" more calories to eat that day...at least.
Women need fewer calories than men, particularly when they're trying to lose weight. I knew low-carbing women on the discussion boards who were trying to keep their calories under 1200. That's not so unusual for women.
But I'm not counting calories because I know they are naturally lower than they were when I was eating "unlimited" butter, olive oil, meat, and cheese.
And, to clarify, I've been on a plant-based diet for about 3-4 months. I just started with another doctor's plan first, not McDougall's. It was similar, but had a few differences, so I'm not that new of a recruit to this WOE.
I said I was going to wait for awhile to have any lipid profile done, so I can see how this diet has worked. I'm not concerned about heart disease or diabetes, but I'll be sure to post the outcome if you're really worried about me. But I suspect Jim Fixx, like many "evangelists," was a closet cheat because his results on low fat/plant based diet are atypical.
And just because somebody came up with a low carb diet to treat diabetes doesn't prove that there is a clear cause and effect. And what kind of carbs - Sugar? White bread? Donuts? Agreed. Don't eat sugar and crappy processed carbs if you're diabetic. In fact, don't eat them at all.
But that doesn't prove that a plain potato or bowl of whole grain rice (with no added fat) is causing diabetes. If it did, all asian populations would've been obese and diabetic long before they were westernized.
And I believe that type 2 diabetes is more often diagnosed in obese people than thin people - that's obviously what I meant by "linked" (you like to play stupid while calling people stupid, which usually indicates a total lack of a valid argument).
I don't know for certain this is the case, but it seems logical. If we have a growing epidemic of thin diabetics in this country I wasn't aware. I thought rates of diabetes pretty much increased along with obesity rates. If this is untrue, please enlighten us.
LS at March 29, 2012 1:38 PM
Nevermind. As common sense dictates, diabetes rates do "link" with obesity rates:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123887/U.S.-Diabetes-Rate-Climbs-Above-11-Could-Hit-15-2015.aspx
LS at March 29, 2012 1:48 PM
Oh, and I'm still not finding where Fixx was a low fat vegan. In fact, I keep finding that he had a poor, high fat diet and believed exercise would compensate:
"We can learn this principal by studying the life of Jim Fixx. He became one the greatest runners of his time. He could run marathons under four hours. He even wrote a book called The Complete Book Of Running.
Though he became the biggest advocate for running, he wasn’t always a runner. He used to smoke two packs of cigarettes a day up until the age of 35 when he started running. He used to eat whatever he wanted also, which included many burgers and shakes.
Then he started running. While he did quit smoking, he didn’t understand the importance diet had in developing optimum health. He continued to eat his high fat diet. He just didn’t worry about eating more healthfully and largely ignored this counsel.
Unfortunately, at the age of only 52, Jim Fixx was found dead one day at the side of the road in Vermont. All he was wearing was his running shorts and running shoes. He had a massive heart attack.
His major arteries were severely clogged. He was the greatest spokesperson on the benefits on running, but completely ignored what a healthy diet can also do. Exercise is a great means of becoming physically fit, but it does not compensate for poor eating habits."
It kind of makes a difference if he ate a high fat diet or a low fat one. Which is it?
From Wikipedia:
On July 20, 1984, Fixx died at the age of 52 of a fulminant heart attack, after his daily run on Vermont Route 15 in Hardwick. The autopsy revealed that atherosclerosis had blocked one coronary artery 95%, a second 85%, and a third 70%.[3] Although there were opponents of Fixx's beliefs who said this was evidence that running was harmful, medical opinion continued to uphold the link between exercise and longevity.[4] In 1986 exercise physiologist, Kenneth Cooper, published an inventory of the risk factors that might have contributed to Fixx's death.[5] Granted access to his medical records and autopsy, and after interviewing his friends and family, Cooper concluded that Fixx was genetically predisposed (his father died of a heart attack at age 43 and Fixx himself had a congenitally enlarged heart), and had several lifestyle issues. Fixx was a heavy smoker prior to beginning running at age 36, he had a stressful occupation, he had undergone a second divorce, and his weight before he took up running had ballooned to 220lbs.[6]"
LS at March 29, 2012 2:01 PM
Nevermind. As common sense dictates, diabetes rates do "link" with obesity rates:
Oh, you didn't tell me you were Vulcan.
"dictates".
You didn't define "link". Link could mean many things. I suspect you prefer what you meant to say as ambigious as possible.
Did you mean "correlates" or "causes"? Or something else?
Unix-Jedi at March 29, 2012 2:45 PM
While you're defining "links", for what you meant by that, also riddle me this, please.
so now you're not only an expert on
If the qualification is that you must be an "expert" prior to opining, on what basis are you typing, since you've admitted repeatedly that "you don't know?"
Unix-Jedi at March 29, 2012 2:55 PM
At least I admit when I'm uncertain. You have accused me repeatedly of not knowing what I'm talking about, yet it appears that you're the one who didn't know what you were talking about regarding Jim Fixx, who it seems was never even a vegetarian, much less a low fat vegan.
LS at March 29, 2012 4:55 PM
LS:
At least I admit when I'm uncertain.
I just pointed out that no, you don't.
You really don't know how much you know, don't know, or how to evaluate any arguments.
You have accused me repeatedly of not knowing what I'm talking about,
And backed it up! Don't forget that part!
yet it appears that you're the one who didn't know what you were talking about regarding Jim Fixx, who it seems was never even a vegetarian, much less a low fat vegan.
Which puts him on par with Otzi, who your source claimed was a low fat vegan. :)
I remember Fixx promoting his books, and diet, on the morning shows. For a while, any diet/exercise segment had him on as the expert. No, I don't know what he did in his private life.
OK, I concede Fixx to you. He wasn't an good example.
Now, how about all the examples, and are you ever going to define what you mean by "linked" with obesity and diabetes, and explain how, if you're uncertain, yet insist anyone commenting be an "expert" that you're exempted?
Unix-Jedi at March 29, 2012 7:47 PM
"You really don't know how much you know, don't know, or how to evaluate any arguments."
Just saying this over and over again isn't an argument. It's merely designed to make you seem smarter while not backing up your assertions with any evidence, and even when you do attempt to back something up, it usually backfires because you're almost always wrong.
The only thing you've shown me to be incorrect about was mixing up insulin and glucose in one comment.
"Which puts him on par with Otzi, who your source claimed was a low fat vegan. :)"
You twist people's comments and add in words. He never said he was a "low fat" vegan. He said he was "essentially vegan," based on hair analysis.
Here's the quote:
"The same kind of hair analysis in this study determined that the Ice Man, preserved in a glacier of the Oetztaler Alps 5200 years ago, was essentially vegan."
See how that's different from the way you're trying to distort what was said? Maybe you have an issue with comprehension, which is why you thought Fixx claimed to be a vegan when he was simply promoting exercise.
"Now, how about all the examples, and are you ever going to define what you mean by "linked" with obesity and diabetes, and explain how, if you're uncertain, yet insist anyone commenting be an "expert" that you're exempted?"
What are you talking about? I already explained what I meant by "linked" - tracks, trends. As obesity rates go up, so do diabetes rates. That's what I meant, and I linked charts as an example.
Which puts him on par with Otzi, who your source claimed was a low fat vegan. :)
LS at March 29, 2012 11:15 PM
Here is an article on Otzi's diet. Even though you tried to distort McDougall's statement to make him seem wrong, it appears that his "essentially vegan" comment is legitimate. Someone who is "essentially vegan" can still eat meat.
http://www.nature.com/news/2001/010102/full/news001228-7.html
Earlier, you posted only about the contents of Otzi's stomach, and mentioned nothing about the hair analysis, which is the kind of thing you do -distort and mislead.
LS at March 29, 2012 11:32 PM
LS:
Hey, you're right about something!
Just saying this over and over again isn't an argument.
THAT'S CORRECT!
Wait, which of us has been doing that...
It's merely designed to make you seem smarter while not backing up your assertions with any evidence
But I have backed up what I've said. With the exception of the retracted Jim Fixx citation, because when I remember him dying, it was after he'd been all over the media talking about eliminating fat from the diet. As was the wont at the time, I've tried to explain to you where some of your misconceptions come from, and that you don't understand basic biochem.
And I've pointed out your hypocrisy and your confusion.
You twist people's comments and add in words. He never said he was a "low fat" vegan. He said he was "essentially vegan," based on hair analysis.
He used Otzi as a crutch, and an example. Based on the hair evidence - OK, fine. But his stomach and intestine contents did not support this. I didn't twist anything, your wonderful doctor did.
Me: "Which puts him on par with Otzi, who your source claimed was a low fat vegan. :)"
Doc: "The same kind of hair analysis in this study determined that the Ice Man, preserved in a glacier of the Oetztaler Alps 5200 years ago, was essentially vegan."
See how that's different from the way you're trying to distort what was said?
No.
But we'll get to reading comprehension next week. This week we'll work on logic and consistency.
Earlier, you posted only about the contents of Otzi's stomach, and mentioned nothing about the hair analysis, which is the kind of thing you do -distort and mislead.
Why would I mention it, it was the subject you were talking about, and there was data easily available that demonstrated that your cited authority was talking out his ass. I don't need to CITE THE SUBJECT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TO REFUTE IT. Your doctor said "See! This hair analysis shows that this is "historical" and good!" Me: "Uh, his stomach contents don't support your conclusion. You: "You didn't talk about the hair analysis!!!"
I didn't need to to point out that at least in that one easily demonstrated case, that your doctor had - in your words - distorted and mislead. (And what Otzi has to do with the nutritional content of rice in China, I dunno, but it was his example, not mine.
Me: are you ever going to define what you mean by "linked" with obesity and diabetes
What are you talking about? I already explained what I meant by "linked" - tracks, trends.
That's not "linked". There's correlation, causation, and coincidence.
That's why I've asked you to define it.
As obesity rates go up, so do diabetes rates. That's what I meant, and I linked charts as an example.
Which gets back to you not "understanding what you're saying". Yes, you linked charts that might show correlation. But that does not prove what you said it does (or think it does.) Tom Naughton does a very good show on this, it's on youtube, you ought to watch. You'll learn something.)
Those rates might be correlated. Or they might not. There might be no overlap between them, or one might cause the other. Diabetes might cause obesity. Or Cell phone radiation might cause diabetes.
I never said I was eating 1500 calories a day. I have no idea exactly. I was guestimating that if I ate a pound of potatoes, which is around 500 calories, I'd still have "app 1000" more calories to eat that day...at least.
1000 + 500 = 1500. Ok. Maybe you're splurging! 1600!!!
Diets under 1500 calories, which according to you, not me, you is what you're eating, are categorized completely differently. There's a lot of evidence that these might increase longevity - at the expense of health. Bone issues, joint issues, and quite a few other ailments have been studied.
Now, how that will work, I don't know. But I do know that eating starches, as you are, leaches a lot of elements from the body, that's got to be replaced somewhere. I'd have concerns that you're not going to manage that enough - but perhaps your carbs aren't going to be enough to leach.
Yes, you confused glucose and insulin. In a discussion that is basically, all about glucose and insulin. And their interaction(s).
Let's wait a bit on your diet and see what numbers you come back with, before we go too wild.
Unix-Jedi at March 30, 2012 5:32 AM
"He used Otzi as a crutch, and an example. Based on the hair evidence - OK, fine. But his stomach and intestine contents did not support this. I didn't twist anything, your wonderful doctor did."
That's a lie. If you read the link, the researchers who did the hair analysis concluded that Otzi was primarily vegetarian. Some people may dispute their findings, but McDougall's statement was based on fact.
And also common sense. Primitive man didn't eat meat 3 times a day like we do. He had to chase it, catch it, and kill it, which was a huge energy expense. Plus, meat couldn't be easily stored or thrown in the fridge like we do, so primitive man was probably lucky to eat meat once or twice a week. In between, he ate as many plant-based foods as he could find.
By OUR standards - compared to the typical western diet - most primitive men would probably present as "essentially vegan."
If you analyzed my hair, you'd find I eat almost the same way - plants, grains - but I also had some fish on Monday. If I had died on Monday, you would've found that meat in my stomach too, but clearly, my overall diet is "essentially vegan".
So, actually, I'm eating the TRUE paleo way!:)
And starches do not leach nutrients from the bone, though diets high in meat consumption have been shown to leach calcium. Even Eades acknowledges this, while claiming that the issue has been addressed by the addition of more fruits and vegetables in his diet.
"That's not "linked". There's correlation, causation, and coincidence."
Did I claim to be RESEARCHING diabetes? I don't think so. You're the one obsessed with diabetes. I was merely stating the fact that the rates of diabetes rise with the rates of obesity. Of course, that doesn't prove causation.
There again, you're arguing something that's not even at issue.
"Which gets back to you not "understanding what you're saying". Yes, you linked charts that might show correlation. But that does not prove what you said it does (or think it does.)"
But I wasn't trying to prove any correlations for diabetes. Perhaps you are. That's fine. We can discuss your theories on the matter.
I don't know the cause of diabetes. But I imagine it's quite complex.
The only thing I have asserted here is that people following a low fat/plant based diet, with complex carbs and grains, are not becoming diabetic, and many have even reversed diabetes following this type of diet. So, there must be more to the full diabetes picture than simply eating these foods.
That's merely a hypothesis. It doesn't prove anything, but if you believe you can prove how eating plain brown rice CAUSES diabetes, please, by all means, go ahead.
LS at March 30, 2012 7:05 AM
For what it's worth, I once was seated at a dinner with a renowned doctor, who specialized in diabetes. It was years ago, so I don't recall his name, but we had an interesting conversation, and the gist of it was: Everyone is diabetic.
I remember that part clearly because it was so shocking of him to say. But, the way I understood his point (which may not be accurate, so don't jump on me - I'm merely reporting this) was that we all exist in some prediabetic state, with basically asymtomatic diabetes, but then certain factors trigger the manifestation of symptoms and problems for certain individuals, and one of those factors, at least in his view, was obesity.
He advised me to continue to stay thin, which I think is good advice regarding a lot of health issues.
LS at March 30, 2012 7:22 AM
That's a lie.
"Lie" doesn't mean "inconvenient fact".
Yes, he did, and I quoted him doing it.
Some people may dispute their findings, but McDougall's statement was based on fact.
Fact doesn't mean "thing I like".
His statement, that the [hair analysis] showed [that he ate a vegan diet] when the actual gastrointestinal contents directly refuted that - with multiple meals of meat in the GI tract - and that was one of the first results released doesn't mean he's right, it means he's wrong, and if he's right, that the hair analysis shows that, it might just show that the interpretation/result hair analysis is questionable.
And also common sense.
It's one thing to preen yourself and think that you're smarter than everything else. It's particularly silly to do so when you've already demonstrated multiple logical fallacies, completely incorrect conclusions, and deductions that dedudded.
Primitive man didn't eat meat 3 times a day like we do.
You say this based on...?
Plus, meat couldn't be easily stored
or thrown in the fridge like we do, so primitive man was probably lucky to eat meat once or twice a week.
Truely, a dizzying intellect.
In between, he ate as many plant-based foods as he could find.
Oh, well, you've certainly convinced me based on your "common sense". Good thing we don't have any cultures we could compare known histories and diets with.
Oh, wait, there are. And they're totally at odds with your "common sense". Gee, who saw that coming.
I was merely stating the fact that the rates of diabetes rise with the rates of obesity.
We're now to the point in an internet debate where you're denying you said exactly what you said, and obfuscating, because you've lost track of your own point, and now you're just blathering.
You said "linked", I asked multiple times for what you meant by it, and now you're saying that they're not, in fact linked. So they're linked, but not linked, and this proves your point.
And starches do not leach nutrients from the bone
Starches do leach nutrients from the system, not just bones. Ever heard of scurvy? Eat ultra low-carb, high-fat, and you'll never get it. Vitamin D? Calcium? All these have been demonstrated to be removed via intake (and processing) of starches in the diet.
Oh, wait, you don't like to hear that, so it's a lie.
Right, I forgot. Whack it in half! Go faster than a mile a minute! Tada!
Unix-Jedi at March 30, 2012 6:57 PM
Yeah, tada. There's no point debating with you. Your posts are simply filled with outright lies and distortions, which is why there is never any evidence in them to substantiate your claims. No links. No proof. You just make crap up.
PROVE complex starches leach nutrients from your system.
PROVE all primitive men ate meat 3 x a day.
PROVE complex grains cause diabetes.
What, you can't even do a google search and find these facts you claim are so obvious?
Oh wait, that's because the evidence isn't really there, or it's not that conclusive, or it's outright false. Just like it wasn't with Jim Fixx, though you were dead certain he ate just like me and this proved I'd drop dead of coronary disease.
And now, you're suggesting I'm going to get scurvy, which is caused by a LACK OF VITAMIN C - something I get plenty of eating fresh fruits and vegetables. That's the stupidest thing you've said yet. In fact, it's so stupid that it's clear that trying to have a reasoned conversation with you about this is futile.
LS at March 30, 2012 9:32 PM
LS:
Your posts are simply filled with outright lies and distortions,
Translation LS/English: You quoted me/my sources! SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP!
No links. No proof. You just make crap up.
Translation LS/English: You know things I don't, and I don't want to know! That's unfair!
PROVE complex starches leach nutrients from your system.
PROVE all primitive men ate meat 3 x a day.
PROVE complex grains cause diabetes.
Those are your strawmen. Not my arguments. Your strawmen, because you're busy "Whacking it in half" (I probably should link that video, since years from now people won't know why that's topical).
Those aren't my positions, and you've spent time and effort to craft them to be similar to what [you thought] I said - enough that it's obvious you know there's a problem with your viewpoint, but you'll refuse to admit it.
Compare this to where I quoted your source, and pointed out he was totally wrong about the Ozti mummy, and you accused me of being dishonest, with his words right here on the page.
Yes, one of us is full of lies and distortions.
One of us also has taken and passed college-level biochemistry courses.
And now, you're suggesting I'm going to get scurvy,
No, I did not suggest that. I did, however, use that as a demonstration of a well-known lack of nutrient, that is only seen in high-carb, low-fat diets. If you eliminate _all_ external sources of Vitamin C, and eat a high-fat diet, there's no scurvy due to lack of Vitamin C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson
It's leached by carb consumption. It may be replaced by more external Vitamin C, and must be if you're eating carbs.
I never said you were going to get scurvy (Though, if you're eating mainly potatoes that is something I'd suggest you keep track of).
That was your strawman to deal with my cite, because that's one of those very strong pieces of evidence against your "common sense".
That's the stupidest thing you've said yet.
Especially since you said it!
In fact, it's so stupid that it's clear that trying to have a reasoned conversation with you about this is futile.
Wait, when are you going to start trying to use reason? I mean, heck, if you start now, we might yet get you to learn something!
Unix-Jedi at March 31, 2012 6:49 AM
Geeze, all the low carbers sure love the Inuit. But just because some small population, living on the extreme edges of the environment, adapted well to a diet of nothing but meat and fat, doesn't prove that a diet of whole grains and vegetables is unhealthy.
Eating lots of REFINED carbs (and soda) may lead to malnourishment and scurvy. But that's not the kind of diet either of us is following, is it? As I've already said, both low carb and plant/based diets are WHOLE FOOD DIETS.
You're comparing potatoes to pop tarts. A potato actually contains almost every nutrient humans need, and pop tarts have virtually none.
http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall020400pupotatoesarepillars.htm
Not that I'm eating only potatoes. I'm eating whole grains/starches, lots of vegetables, legumes, some fruit, and a little fish.
There's nothing unhealthy about this diet, yet you persist in suggesting that it is. Let's recap how:
-You called me "dysmorphic" for wanting to lose 10 pds.
-Even though I didn't say I was eating 1500 calories a day, and was merely using those numbers to explain the concept of calorie density, you reacted as if I was malnourished.
Yet, everything I read says the average woman my age should be able to maintain (not lose) her weight at around 1800 calories. But that this should be adjusted based on height, overall size, etc. I'm 5'4 and slim, so even if I ate 1500 calories a day (which I don't assert because I'm not counting), I'd hardly be hopelessly malnourished.
This distorted view of proper calorie intake makes me wonder if you're morbidly obese and used to eating 5,000+ calories a day or something. Why else would you consider 1500 so low for a short, slender female?
At any rate, I don't understand why you're reacting so negatively to my choice of diet. If you enjoy meat, then fine, eat it all day long. You don't need to justify this by using Ozti, the Inuits, or any conjecture regarding diets of early man.
One thing we know for certain is that whatever early man ate - whatever percentage of calories came from meat or plant sources - it was also WHOLE UNPROCESSED FOOD. He didn't have to worry about pink slime, fillers, or hormones in his meat. He didn't have to worry about Monsanto genetically modifying his plants and seeds. So, it seems to me that people today can't possibly eat like primitive man.
But eat the way you want, just don't tell me that my way of eating is unhealthy, that I'm unhealthy, or will soon be unhealthy. You have absolutely no basis for that.
LS at March 31, 2012 7:53 AM
Nobody's probably still here, but I'm going to tag the end of this thread with an article I found on Taubes, written after his NY Times piece, which was apparently heavily criticized by The Washington Post, as well as many of the researchers he quoted, for distorting their comments and ignoring relevant reasearch. Yet, he got a $700,000 book deal out of it.
Of course, I can't verify how much of this is true, but even if half of it is, it should provoke some healthy skeptism regarding Taubes' and Eades' claims.
http://www.fumento.com/fat/reason.html
LS at April 1, 2012 12:39 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3115034">comment from LSLS, you are just desperate to prove that your diet of two months, which is based in the crap "science" promoted by an animal rights nutter, is based in actual science. It is not. I have been told by people at reason how embarrassed they were that they published Fumento's crap attack on Taubes. Here's Taubes' response:
http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/an-exercise-in-vitriol-rather/singlepage
It seems quite possible that jealousy was the real motivation.
Amy Alkon at April 1, 2012 1:23 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3115042">comment from Amy AlkonTaubes in a Kniight Science Journo Fellowships piece by Martha Henry for MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/knight-science/fellows/interviews/taubes.html
Gary Taubes, through putting out the actual science (not the crapthink of this animal rights researcher and the others you refer to -- in the very human act of desperate self-justification) has helped countless people drop pounds with ease and without hunger.
A biologist, who is one of these people, found this to be very good science:
http://freetheanimal.com/2011/03/phd-med-school-biology-researcher-goes-paleo-racks-up-70-pound-weight-loss-gets-hot.html
Amy Alkon at April 1, 2012 1:33 PM
I couldn't open the Reason link. It just shows Gary Taubes vitriol headline. No writing.
But what about all the researchers who were infuriated by how he misquoted them, or how he interviewed them but threw out what they said because because they disagreed with his high fat theory? How do you reconcile that level of bias?
I know you're friendly with Taubes, but don't let that blind you to how he cherrypicks information to present. In fact, his whole premise is based on something that isn't true: Americans have NOT been eating less fat.
Eades and Taubes repeatedly claim that low carb comes out way ahead of low fat in studies, but they're not true low fat studies! 30% isn't low fat. It's only slightly less than the typical American fatty diet. And "low fat" in these studies can be refined foods. It's not the Ornish diet, Esselstyn diet, or McDougall's diet. All of which are less than 10%-15% fat and whole foods. The results of people following true low fat diets, like those, seem much more impressive than the results low carb has shown so far. Shouldn't the low carbers be interested in a true comparison?
And I've been following this WOE for 4 months and have lost 8 pds. You keep calling McDougall "an animal rights nutter" but I've found no evidence that he's either an activist or a nut. What do you base that on? Taubes or Eades?
Please don't get angry with me. I'm not angry with you. I'm honestly just asking you to read this criticism and consider it with an open mind because if these guys are selling snake oil, it effects your health and that of many others.
LS at April 1, 2012 2:02 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3115079">comment from LSLS, Google the article then and read it.
The bottom line, you're promoting "science" of an animal rights nut.
He is not the one cherrypicking -- Fumento is. Read a little about Fumento. Piece o' work.
LS, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence in Taubes' book and on Mike Eades' blog -- evidence which has led countless people to start eating this way and lose weight and change their profile to healthy instead of being at risk for diabetes.
Meat has every nutrient the human body needs in perfect supply. I hope nobody has been misled here by your desperate attempt to justify the way you've been eating for two months because numerous people are now thinner and healthier thanks to the very good science put out by Eades, Taubes, Feinman, and others.
Amy Alkon at April 1, 2012 2:07 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3115084">comment from Amy AlkonI'm carsick today, again, and have to go back to bed, but this is utter steaming crap:
America's been on lowfat diets since the government announced the non-science based advice that they should be and it's caused an obesity explosion. I myself used to eat this way -- it causes hunger, malnourishment and binging.
Amy Alkon at April 1, 2012 2:08 PM
"LS, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence in Taubes' book and on Mike Eades' blog -- evidence which has led countless people to start eating this way and lose weight and change their profile to healthy instead of being at risk for diabetes."
I don't dispute that people lose weight, often lots of it. I dispute Taubes hypothesis (because that's all it is) that unrefined grains and starches are what cause diabetes or obesity. I dispute the need that you, Taubes, and Eades have to tell everyone to fear unrefined grains/starches.
And I'm disturbed by the level of unwarranted and personal attacks that are directed at researchers, journalists, or other doctors who disagree.
McDougall doesn't appear to be a nut, or deserve to be called one, just because he is a doctor treating patients with a different approach.
I don't know about Fumento. I'll read about him. But I know that this is what they do to EVERYONE who disagrees with them, and to any research or study that disagrees. And it can't always be that one-sided-slam-dunk "we're right and everyone else is wrong!". There also seems to be a mountain of evidence against high fat/low carb being healthy in the long run.
I'm going to read the Washington Post article. I read Taubes rebuttal already, so I know he attempts to discredit the author there too. Basically anyone or any science that conflicts is totally without merit. This seems very suspicious to me.
LS at April 1, 2012 2:25 PM
"America's been on lowfat diets since the government announced the non-science based advice that they should be and it's caused an obesity explosion. I myself used to eat this way -- it causes hunger, malnourishment and binging."
Amy, I think you'll find this isn't true. The percentage of fat went down (because we ate more of everything), but overall fat consumption went up. Just because low fat was recommended didn't mean it was followed, and the food industry seized on the craze as a way to market lots of sugary refined food - "low fat" cookies, cakes, snacwkells, Lean Cuisine, etc. Americans may have thought they were eating low fat, but they actually weren't. So, of course, they got fatter.
LS at April 1, 2012 2:30 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3115133">comment from LSI find this IS true -- personally and from the research. I'm responding to you in only the most half-hearted way because this is a huge, worthless timesuck.
The science is what Taubes is laying out.
You're wrong, you're trying to justify your diet. Eating enough fat is satiating and typically means you to eat fewer calories.
People eat lowfat yogurt, lowfat cheese and drink skim milk and eat lean meat that don't give their brain the fat it needs thanks to the unscientific advice you're touting. It's tragic that people have been eating this way and an annoying waste of my time that you continue to bleat on about this here, on an entry nobody's looking at anymore.
I have constantly laid out the science from people who lay out the science meticulously and understandably to a lay person. If you want to eat contrary to the science - go ahead. If you wish to blog about it till your fingers come off at the hinges, there are free blogs available for the setup at blogspot.com
Amy Alkon at April 1, 2012 3:01 PM
Amy, they replace the fat with hidden sugar to make these products "low fat", and the fact they were labeled as such caused people to overeat them, consuming more calories. Our calorie consumption increased and that's the main reason Americans grew fat.
I'm not eating contrary to science because the science actually supports this low fat/whole foods way of eating. Taubes and Eades just CLAIM the science supports their way of eating but they're distorting the truth.
I can't find Sally Squires Washington Post article. It's so old I guess, but here's an article about it. Notice all Taubes' distortions and omissions.
http://www.navs-online.org/nutrition/dietmyths/atkinsomissions.php
Well, you probably won't read it because it's from a vegetarian site, but that doesn't make it inaccurate. Maybe you can find the actual Post article.
Here's an interesting part of it. When questioned about why he omitted a lot of data showing low fat diets work:
"Taubes' excuses for these omissions - ranging from an opinion that one prominent scientist "didn't strike me as a scientist," to an assessment that another didn't cause quite enough weight loss, to his own "gut feeling" that the head of one peer-reviewed study "made the data up," to a breezy dismissal of the entire science of epidemiology - come off as comically bogus. Squires may have been giving Taubes a taste of his own selective-quote medicine, especially by concluding her article with his quote "I know, I sound like if somebody finds something I believe in, then I don't question it."
LS at April 1, 2012 3:24 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3115238">comment from LSI know Taubes well. He is the most exhaustive researcher I have ever met and the most fair and truth-seeking.
Sally Squires WP article has been dealt with here.
Go have some tofu or whatever it is you're eating now. You're not changing any minds here and I will continue to put out good solid science -- which Gary Taubes is a seeker and finder of (as well as being a skeptic's skeptic).
Again, if you're interested in pushing this unscientifically based lowfat diet, get your own blog. This is an annoying timesuck for me and although I could debunk all these comments of yours I have neither the time nor interest. People who want to lose weight can read Gary Taubes'
Why We Get Fat and Good Calories, Bad Calories and see for themselves. He lays out all the research and explains it in detail. Your response is similar to that of the childhood obesity researchers I saw him speak to, who understood all the reasons he was right -- and admitted that -- but so needed to self-justify what they'd been doing for all these years (and maintain their grant money) that they decided to cling to what they had been doing, which is making fat kids fatter.
Amy Alkon at April 1, 2012 4:48 PM
There's nothing unhealthy about this diet, yet you persist in suggesting that it is.
Actually, LS, again to tell you you can't read and comprehend, but, no, I didn't.
I told you the markers I'd like to see to verify that in fact, it is healthy, and you elided right past that.
You can lose "weight" and be worse off. Weight, as I've said, and you couldn't understand, is one measure, and it's not, by itself, paramount.
The problem with this sort of argument with people like you, is they don't even know what they said, and when you quote it to them - instead of scrolling up to check, they just call you a liar for quoting them.
Even though I didn't say I was eating 1500 calories a day
Why kant LS do maths?
LS Sed:
A pound of potatoes is only around 500 calories, so I could theoretically eat that many at one sitting and still have app 1000 daily calories yet to consume
1000
+ 500
------
1500
But wait! What did LS say next?
(of course, I can't eat that much, but I eat until I'm completely satisfied)
I. Can't. Eat. That. Much.
Even though I didn't say I was eating 1500 calories a day
1000
+ 500
------
1500
Even though I didn't say I was eating 1500 calories a day
No, you said you were eating LESS THAN THAT.
(of course, I can't eat that much, but I eat until I'm completely satisfied)
LS, I can't tell you what you're doing, all I can do is to go by the words you say here.
Right there, those are your words. Not mine. Press and hold "control" and then "f" for "find" and then type them into your box, and see who said them.
According to what you said, you're eating less than 1500 calories per day. If you're not, then the fault, and any deception that attaches, is on you, not me, for reading what you said, and being able to do basic math.
and was merely using those numbers to explain the concept of calorie density, you reacted as if I was malnourished.
Again, you don't understand. (It's a common rejoinder).
I said you were in caloric restriction. Which is a wholly different land, with lots of arguing and debate, but you're no longer in the low-carb/low-fat debate.
That's what I said - hit control-F, and go back and look. That's because > 1500 calories is the realm of the caloric restriction diets.
But you do not understand.
You don't understand the biochemistry. The definitions. The basic damn math of 500+1000.
And yet, somehow, even though you admit you don't understand, but that doesn't stop you from being an expert (since according to you only experts can have opinions - Cntl-F it), you think you can evaluate the opposing views?
You can't.
Geeze, all the low carbers sure love the Inuit. But just because some small population, living on the extreme edges of the environment, adapted well to a diet of nothing but meat and fat, doesn't prove that a diet of whole grains and vegetables is unhealthy.
You're right, that doesn't prove that "whole grains and vegetables is unhealthy. But the Inuit do prove that low carb is healthy. It demonstrates the converse of your assertation perfectly. Every person whose gone on the "Eskimo diet" has had no ill effects, and has had their markers improve dramatically.
That's why they're so "loved". It makes a dramatic point. Eating the diet that according to your gurus is the worst possible - doesn't result in what they predict.
But you're right, it doesn't prove that your diet is unhealthy.
It does prove that you need no carbs to survive and do well. Not so fat. You *must* have fat in the diet or you *will die*.
The rest of your rantings, well, basically, no, you don't understand.
He didn't have to worry about Monsanto genetically modifying his plants and seeds.
*facepalm*.
Yeah, I guess you don't eat corn, or wheat, or potatoes or almonds or olives or any of those dastardly modified foods..... Oh, hell, the level of naivety you just exhibited is epic.
You don't need to justify this by using Ozti, the Inuits, or any conjecture regarding diets of early man.
You're the one conjecturing here, LS.
The problem is, your "common sense" falls completely when you compare it to the archaeological record.
So, LS, I'm sorry you're offended that I seem to imply you're stupid, but really, it's not me, it's you.
Unix-Jedi at April 1, 2012 8:22 PM
I'm not eating contrary to science because the science actually supports this low fat/whole foods way of eating. Taubes and Eades just CLAIM the science supports their way of eating but they're distorting the truth.
In order to evaluate this, you'd need to be able to define and explain the relationship between glucose and insulin.
You've established you can't.
Yet you call them liars.
Ok, if you wanted to find out which viewpoint was actually the "right" one, how would you do it?
I dispute Taubes hypothesis (because that's all it is) that unrefined grains and starches are what cause diabetes or obesity. I dispute the need that you, Taubes, and Eades have to tell everyone to fear unrefined grains/starches.
Ok, LS.
Let's get this out of the way.
What, exactly, is diabetes?
Wiki can be quoted, but I'd prefer it in your own words. To demonstrate that you've not just read Wikipedia, but understand what you're talking about.
Unix-Jedi at April 1, 2012 8:41 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/25/cholesterol_the.html#comment-3115830">comment from Unix-JediUnix-Jedi, thanks for arguing this.
Amy Alkon at April 1, 2012 11:08 PM
Amy: Sure thing.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Besides, I can't go do anything fun at the beach _anyway_....
Unix-Jedi at April 2, 2012 8:40 AM
Ah well, LS. Sorry you couldn't win, thanks for playing, Amy has some nice parting gifts for you backstage.
Now, let me supply some answers that you could not.
Diabetes is quite simple to define: Too much glucose in the blood.
It can be due to several reasons, but usually it's "Type 1": The pancreas doesn't make (enough) insulin to lower glucose or "Type 2": The body doesn't respond to the insulin produced by the pancreas.
Now, to oversimplify a lot, to keep this short:
You have 1 hormone that works to lower blood sugar. Insulin.
You have 1 major hormone that works to raise it - glucagon - and 4 less important ones.
Now, from an evolutionary standpoint, it sure seems obvious which is more likely to have been something that needed regulating - low, or high? High seems not to have been a big problem. Low, on the other hand, seems to be an issue that we evolved to need more assistance in regulating.
So, all that said. When you eat your plate of potatoes and brown rice, your system converts those starches via some hydrolysis and oxidation and reduction to glucose in the blood. How well it does that is measured by the Glycemic Index these days.
Now, the GI obviously has some issues - we know that for instance, pure fructose has a GI from 15-25 - but that's incorrect, because it causes a massive spike in glucose in the blood, with no responding insulin dump to counter.
But GI works for the most part for this part of the conversation.
You're eating carbs. With GI's 50+, for the most part. But that means that the sugar is dispensed slowly as the GI goes up.
The real issue here is how much sugar in total do you absorb? Low GI foods take longer, but the real issue is how many carbs, total, are you taking in and converting?
The more you take in, the more insulin must be dispatched to regulate the BG. (Which gets into a massive feedback when someone is insulin resistant).
But in simple: More glucose in the blood requires more insulin to regulate.
OK? With me so far?
You're talking about eating almost all sugar. That's what it turns into. Until you tell me what you're actually eating, the math can't be done - since you say that what you said isn't what you said or something - but potatoes turn to sugar. That's how you utilize them.
By comparison, meat has very little glucose impact - it must be converted to glucose. It's so low, it's considered 0 on the GI charts.
So, let's go back to McDouwhatever you quoted.
LS: (your words) McDougall on insulin. Meat actually causes a rise in blood sugar too.
What you quoted: "One of the greatest distortions of the truth promoted by high-protein diet advocates is that protein causes little or no increase in production of insulin. However, research shows just the opposite. When fed in equal amounts (calories), beef raises insulin more than whole grain pasta, cheese more than white pasta, and fish more than porridge
If he's right - and I don't think he is, but EVEN IF HE IS... Which means.. what? Not much. Unless you go hypoglycemic, which is hard to do - remember the 5 ways the body has to raise blood sugar? Without artificial aids, the small rise in insulin won't matter that much to the blood glucose level by eating meat.
Thus it's mostly irrelevant to the discussion at hand (not totally, but it's too much to go into here.)
Note that you've confused blood glucose with blood insulin - it's a major problem here. Raising insulin, by itself, isn't a problem. Raising glucose is.
(And I really gotta question how in the hell eating something that doesn't raise glucose causes more insulin rise than something that requires insulin to be moderated - but that's a MUCH longer comment.)
OK. So you're eating genetically modified potatoes and cabbage, I presume. (Broccoli? Cauliflower? Used to be cabbage 300 years ago. Carrots were yellow 300 ago.)
If they're low-enough GI, that they're out of your system before it can turn them to sugar (like high-bulk fiber), then it's calorically zero. (Which is why measuring calories is almost useless - unless you're measuring the caloric output from your stool.)
Say, eat some grass. You'll starve. Takes a lot of chewing and digesting to get anything from that - which is why cows chew their cud and have multiple stomachs.
Most of the really-low-GI foods pass before you can break them down enough.
But rice is about the lowest-GI that you can eat that your body can process. And it causes blood glucose to rise.
So yes, if you're eating (enough - you might be not getting enough sheer mass from what you're saying) potatoes and rice, you're running up your blood glucose. At some point, your body will start to work against you, become insulin resistant, start dumping more and more and more insulin, while the glucose goes higher and higher and then....
Yes, you'll be diabetic.
That's how that works.
Unix-Jedi at April 3, 2012 2:38 PM
(Self edit from the next day)
You're eating carbs. With GI's 50+, [(Based on potatoes.)] for the most part. But that means that the sugar is dispensed [less] slowly as the GI goes up.
If they're low-enough GI, that they're out of your system before it can turn them to sugar (like high-bulk fiber), then it's calorically zero. (Which is why measuring calories is almost useless - unless you're measuring the caloric output from your stool.)
Say, eat some grass. You'll starve. Takes a lot of chewing and digesting to get anything from that - which is why cows chew their cud and have multiple stomachs.
I should also amend/clarify:
If you eat your vegetables raw, then you'll see almost no glycemic load. (Glycemic load is, basically, the GI X amount of food.)
Because very few of them have enough starch your system can break down enough to convert to glucose.
Potatoes? Eat 'em raw, won't hurt you. The starches are too complex. Wheat? Nary a problem. Corn? Well, corn actually does show some, raw, but a fraction of the cooked amount. Broccoli, Cauliflower, Squash? Eat 'em til you're bursting, and you'll get almost no calories from them. (You may still get vitamins and minerals, but very little caloric nutrition.)
Because that's what you're doing when you cook and mechanically grind- using heat to break apart starch molecules to something your system can easily convert to sugar, and expose much more surface area to be worked on in the gastrointestinal tract.
Now, GI and GL are related, but not the same. If your total Glycemic LOAD is not that high, based on not eating a lot - then you may still be "OK".
But that's back to those markers for health such as your LDL size, your blood pressure, your % of muscle compared to fat.
Merely measuring weight doesn't cover any of that.
When fed in equal amounts (calories), beef raises insulin more than whole grain pasta, cheese more than white pasta, and fish more than porridge
In fact, I should point out (what to me is bloody obvious, but maybe not for you), that in fact, if you're trying to lower the glucose in the blood, that's actually a GOOD THING ANYWAY. (We'll accept it as true for the purposes of these comments, anyway.)
Because raising insulin drives blood glucose down. Since diabetes is too MUCH glucose in the blood, you're actually citing proof that eating beef and cheese and fish is a better idea if you're trying not to be diabetic.
Example foods : GI is essentially 0
Supposed result of ingesting is increased insulin
Since they've got a GI of ~0, and the insulin is increased, blood glucose goes down.
Versus pasta and porridge, which are convered to sugar by the GI tract, and according to your doctor, less insulin is released, meaning that the blood glucose is much higher.
Unix-Jedi at April 4, 2012 9:06 AM
Leave a comment