How many carbs is VLC?

[hummingbird11]

Hey Le London!

With all due respect, where is the actual evidence that they aren't?

I don't place much faith in studies, they can be so biased, depending on who is funding the study + what "they" wish to prove/disprove, KWIM?

I can speak for only my own body, but I absolutely know that I need the insoluble fiber in veggies/fruits to stay, um, "regular" on LC.

I've tried upping my good fats; taking EVCO; taking magnesium; all kinds of other things, too --
(some natural; some not-so-much)
-- but veggies/fruits is what works best for ME.

Besides, among a myriad of health "experts", even Fawn says they are highly beneficial (cancer-fighting, etc.) and if Fawn says it, I trust it

+ I'm almost certain that the school she attended (to become a health & nutrition educator) supports that stance, too.
+ all of my own docs (including my oncologist) believe in the benefits of veggies/fruits too.

Even the Low Carb Food Pyramid proudly displays veggies/fruits.
But unlike the regular Food Pyramid, the LC version does NOT suggest the ridiculous amount of something like 5-servings a day of each!

Ditto! Loving it and want to read/learn more!

Ya know, when I joined LCF in March 2008, I only had a very vague notion of what a "carb" actually was!!!!!

I'm happy to say I've learned quite a bit since then
And I have a LOT more to learn, too

Originally Posted by legrandeginge

Not meaning to be oppositional....but where is the actual evidence that phytonutrients and the insoluble fiber in fruits and vegetables are highly beneficial?

Aaaaaah this conversation is making me want to read all the literature all over again! Loving it!!

[legrandeginge]

Originally Posted by hummingbird11

Hey Le London!

With all due respect, where is the actual evidence that they aren't?

I don't place much faith in studies, they can be so biased, depending on who is funding the study + what "they" wish to prove/disprove, KWIM?


I'm happy to say I've learned quite a bit since then
And I have a LOT more to learn, too

100% agree with you about studies. I work in the medical profession so as part of my job i have to assess the merit of any studies and the claims they subsequently make. There is a lot in the way of weak evidence, poorly conducted studies, publication bias, and hidden agenda's in research. But then there is also information from investigative biology. Most of that isn't speculative, it's factual, for instance the length of our intenstines compared to monkeys, the differences in our digestive juices etc.

I dont know if you've read Gary Taubes...Good Calories/Bad Calories but it was what started me off on the pursuit for the "cleanest" sources of information. It isn't a diet book as such, isn't trying to sell anything. It's more of one scientists mission to raise awareness of how unscientific and inaccurate most currently unheld nutrional advise is. But then of course, i didn't take Taubes' word on it either, every study he quoted, every person he referenced i double checked, went straight to the original source (working in the NHS i have free access to most of this stuff) and read it for myself. And he did not misrepresent a single thing. Taubes' is the real deal. An actual scientist, looking for the truth, if such a thing exists. So there is information out there that isn't simply what "they" wish to prove/disprove.

And is answer to your question, there is a great deal of biological fact and well conducted research to challenge the belief that fruit and veg is essential. I'm not saying it's bad for you. Not at all. I'm saying it isn't essential. If you are eating the right amount of fish, sea food and meat, there isn't much the body needs from any other source. But this is just what i now believe based on my past few years worth of reading. Before that, i was veggie my whole life so it's a big U turn for me. And it took awhile for my body to adjust to less fibre, if you know what i mean. Actual meat and fat turn to liquid in the stomach so when eaten on their own cant possibly cause a digestive problem.

I would really recommend reading Taubes, it's quite dry but i think you love it!!!

[legrandeginge]

Originally Posted by Looweewoo

Well, there is merit to the concept that creatures don't evolve in situations that are well suited to their current adaptations. While the places where rivers met oceans are probably the best environments for modern and semi modern humanity, without stressors which almost completely wiped out the previous, less well adapted versions, we couldn't have evolved.

"Survival of the Fittest" is a failed evolutionary model, "Survival of the survivors", whether "fit" or not, is the mathematically correct model. We are undoubtedly the progeny of a very few protohumans who just barely made it when the rest of their tribe died. If more of the tribe had survived, the unique characteristics of our ancestors would have been diluted in the broader stream of genetics.

This has nothing to say about where that might have been, whether Savannah or Seaside, but it has a lot to say about the conditions at those habitats. We nearly died.

Sorry Louwee, just to correct you, i never mentioned "survival of the fittest" by Charles Darwin. I mentioned a book called " Survival of the Fattest" by Stephen Cunnane. His book is about brain evolution not mankinds complete evolution. I am fully aware of the advances in post-darwinian theory. The book i'm quoting bases a hypothesis on what we ate and where we lived irrelevant of how many of us lived there. I think there is strong evidence that our numbers were greatly reduced at one point in our over all evolution but that really has nothing to do with my point. I think you may have misread me.

[Looweewoo]

Originally Posted by legrandeginge

Sorry Louwee, just to correct you, i never mentioned "survival of the fittest" by Charles Darwin.

Yeah, no, I wasn't quoting you, I was talking about the concept in general, independent of previous conversation. Sorry for the confusion.

The concept, as I am sure you know, is widely held to mean that some random mutations are somehow "better" and spread throughout a population. I simply wanted to point out that without a nearly complete population die off, even the most favorable mutations are at risk of being lost. Therefore, living in a favorable environment is unlikely to have been the spur to our evolution.

BTW, couldn't agree more on your recommendation of Taube's book. There's a lot there and it's very accessible... at least compared to some of the source material!

Also, good to meet another reformed vegetarian! I was meat free for over 30 years and yes, it took a while to adjust.

[fawn]

What I do know is this:

We have no accurate studies at all only reference to traditional peoples and flawed studies such as the lipid hypothesis, the china study and the framingham study

we have not evolved to consume what processing feeds us
we have not evolved to handle the higher sugars in fruits without some consequence
we do not need the copious amounts of fiber recommended by todays healthcare professionals

conversely,

we consume more antiobiotics, chemicals and growth hormones now than in any previous history in our food, our water our air and our plant matter

the majority of our own food supply is not on a species appropriate diet, is sick, old and fed things most would be repulsed to find out. This is your entire meat/egg/dairy supply......it's the dirtiest...and when you think you're just purchasing "meat" you're actually purchasing "injected meats" you can't even rest assured your pure meat is really pure.

our livers work harder now than ever before

We are exposed to dangerous chemicals every single day not prancing in the woods with a stick and loin cloth.....we take tylenol for headaches, wear anti-persperant, perfumes, hair dyes, artificial sweeteners, etc. etc.

While our digestive systems are capable of turning food into nutrients incredibly efficiently, the bottom line is, your nutrition is only as healthy as it is raised. kwim?

I err on the side of caution and eat all organic, free range, wild caught, take a variety of vitamins and minerals, including that of booster foods like sea vegetables, because at this point, 1 in 3 contract cancer. I'm fighting it before I get it.

My mantra?
Fight it with ease before you must fight it for life because at the end of the day? no one really knows.........

[babetteq]

I love that this thread is entitled "how many carbs is vlc?" and this discussion is what it's turned into!

I'm learning so much from you guys (and, my friend, google)

[legrandeginge]

Hey Fawn

So so true. Except i dont take vitamins as i dont trust what's in them either and i'm not overly convinced that we even absorb vitamins in pill form well.

I buy all my meat from an organic farm, grazing on National Heritage Land (uk) being raised the old fashioned way. It all tastes mighty yummy too i might add. I speak to the farmer every week and i've visited the farm myself. Some say i'm neurotic, but i say i have very right to make sure i eat clean, natural meat!!!?


I visited the states recently for the first time and i had my first encounter with a "non-dairy creamer". I'm still traumatised. I'm not saying there are no issues with the food quality in England, because there are. However, visting California, i had no idea where to buy decent quality anything and i have never eaten such cheap, chemical, foul tasting food in my life.

Actually i'd quite like to run around in a wood, wearing a loin cloth and shaking a stick...whose with me??? ha

Louweewoo yeah i never swallowed Darwinianism. But value it as a starting block, all theories are only as good as the theory they are debunked by i say!! As for vegetarianism...i just cant believe how much healthier and more energised i feel since becoming a carnivore. I've always eaten healthily and was eating organic before anyone knew what GM was (my parents grew their own veg, my mum shunned antibiotics, hell if i needed medicine i got boiled garlic!) but i feel WAY WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY healthier now!!! woo woo

[Looweewoo]

I've eaten "whole food" since I was a young teen, usually vegetarian or "ovo-lacto-vegetarian". Didn't prevent me from being 410 and T2 by age 45. My doctor at the time kept telling me to "lay off the junk food" but I didn't use any junk food. The worst thing I ate was Ben and Jerrys, and they promised me that they used only the finest ingredients!

I still believe in whole foods. Whole steaks, whole shrimps, whole plate full of bacon and eggs...

It's amazing that I can now eat 3000+ calories a day and lose, where before I struggled to stay under 2000 and gained.

[2big4mysize]

Originally Posted by hummingbird11

Hey 2Big,

I just double-checked the book, and yes, that's exactly what Dr Rob Thompson wrote, so.....

Anyway:

True, amylase is an enzyme present in human saliva, where it begins the chemical process of digestion; the pancreas also makes amylase (alpha amylase) to hydrolyse dietary starch into di- and trisaccharides which are converted by other enzymes to glucose to supply the body with energy.

But apparently, that is not its sole use (*see below).

I might try to fund a study, but frankly (as you know), a "study" can be found to support/prove/refute almost anything. So that's not the "end all" for me, esp. when it comes to the topic of Nutrition

Besides, what is "normal" re: consumption of fruits, veggies, grains?
There's an endless myriad of debates (even this thread) on that!

Re: your comment:
I find it strange that we would be genetically programmed to make an enzyme for a compound that wasn't part of our diet as a species.

Well, I think another example of that phenomenon would be nitrites/nitrates.
Aren't those naturally present in our bodies and environment; yet exposure to them can make us sick?

Powered by Google Docs

*Other Uses of AMYLASE:
(copied from Wikipedia)

Amylase enzymes are used extensively in bread making to break down complex sugars such as starch (found in flour) into simple sugars. Yeast then feeds on these simple sugars and converts it into the waste products of alcohol and CO2. This imparts flavor and causes the bread to rise. While Amylase enzymes are found naturally in yeast cells, it takes time for the yeast to produce enough of these enzymes to break down significant quantities of starch in the bread. This is the reason for long fermented doughs such as sour dough. Modern bread making techniques have included amylase enzymes (often in the form of malted barley) into bread improver thereby making the bread making process faster and more practical for commercial use.[2]

When used as a food additive Amylase has E number E1100, and may be derived from pig pancreas or mould mushroom.

Bacilliary amylase is also used in detergents to dissolve starches from fabrics.

Workers in factories that work with amylase for any of the above uses are at increased risk of occupational asthma. 5-9% of bakers have a positive skin test, and a fourth to a third of bakers with breathing problems are hypersensitive to amylase. [3]

An inhibitor of alpha-amylase called phaseolamin has been tested as a potential diet aid. [4]

Blood serum amylase may be measured for purposes of medical diagnosis. A normal concentration is in the range 21-101 U/L. A higher than normal concentration may reflect one of several medical conditions, including acute inflammation of the pancreas, macroamylasemia, perforated peptic ulcer, and mumps. Amylase may be measured in other body fluids, including urine and peritoneal fluid.

I find this all to be quite interesting ... but I also find it a little

I think I need to digest this!
(pardon the pun )

Check again and see if it didn't say amylose which is a form of plant starch the other being the listed amylopectin

actually nitrates are good for us. Better do a little more studying. that nitrates cause cancer study was polluted and shown to be flawed but of course the PETA folk ran with it as proof we shouldn't be eating meat and it got accepted as true and has become urban legand.

Actually it was assumed nitrates and nitrites were inhert materials in the body but in recent yrs study of them has shown they are life savers not inhert materials. During heavy exercise the concnetration in the muscles of them goes down dramatically which is why all the latest exercise performance stuff has NO in it. It was from this discovery that that scientist began to look at exactly what was going on with those NO molecules and it has been discovered that in times of low oxygen they actually are used by the hemoglobin as an oxygen source which makes them a life saving compound. the latest attempts to save us from heart attack and stoke damage are involivng a means to get Nitates and nitrites into our systems quickly to preserve tissues during those impaired blood flow times and for folk with cronic breathing and heart issues to get a supply inside them ahead of time.

Yep one can be harmed by an overdoes of them but one can die from an OD of water too.

[fawn]

Originally Posted by legrandeginge

Hey Fawn

So so true. Except i dont take vitamins as i dont trust what's in them either and i'm not overly convinced that we even absorb vitamins in pill form well.

I buy all my meat from an organic farm, grazing on National Heritage Land (uk) being raised the old fashioned way. It all tastes mighty yummy too i might add. I speak to the farmer every week and i've visited the farm myself. Some say i'm neurotic, but i say i have very right to make sure i eat clean, natural meat!!!?


I visited the states recently for the first time and i had my first encounter with a "non-dairy creamer". I'm still traumatised. I'm not saying there are no issues with the food quality in England, because there are. However, visting California, i had no idea where to buy decent quality anything and i have never eaten such cheap, chemical, foul tasting food in my life.

Actually i'd quite like to run around in a wood, wearing a loin cloth and shaking a stick...whose with me??? ha

I take anti-oxidants because I smoked for several years, live in a wine region etc. etc. I only purchase items that are derived from foods, superior brands, etc. etc....if one is going to take grocery store vitamins, they probably shouldn't take any at all in my humble opinion....but I get what you're saying.

Kudos to you for knowing where your meat comes from! That's awesome and healthy. We're only as healthy as our food source as far as I'm concerned and whether that's strictly animal protein or animal protein plus plant matter and/or dairy, etc. try to consume the best you can! As I've said before though, with my food choices, I'm greatly limited financially so ground beef, eggs and fish are pretty much my staple.....I'm not big on chicken but do eat it. I prefer beef.

Wait right there, I'll grab my stick and join you!

[Elloise]

It's easy to give up fruit during weight loss when you realize its place in evolution. Fruit becomes plentiful in the fall, and early man (and not so early man) would come across a fruit tree or patch and indulge. Fruit tastes sweet, is high in sugar and gives us that nice buzz we crave. What happens in return? Insulin! We gain weight and put on fat which allows us to survive the winter.

Fruit has no place in a weight loss phase - may pre-maintenance or maintenance - but for weight loss? Who are we kidding.

So if meat, fat, and a few green veggies once in a while = VLC, so be it.

p.s. Those were my opinions so if you believe otherwise, I'm fine with it. You can have my share of the fruit.

[fawn]

Elloise, you also bring up another good point. Seasons.......I teach nutrition at an elementary school and they are clueless as to seasonal foods......when we were kids, melon and strawberries meant summer....no longer sadly!

[RoseofSharon]

Some years ago I studied the diet of native americans here on the Oregon coast. They were called the Chinooks, and were one of the best-fed, most advanced tribal nations in the United States. If you have ever heard of totem poles, huge lodges and massive canoes, then you know in some way of this immense nation. Our word potluck comes from their word potlach.

Anyhow, the Chinooks were widely considered as enjoying the richest diet of the Americas. Their foods were fatty salmon, other fish, mussels, deer, elk, bear, and berries, especially the tart salmon berries. (they are good, btw) They were the first recorded peoples to make a preserved food. In their case it was dried and pounded salmon mixed with suet and sometimes berries. To eat it they dipped it in fish oil. They also ate a lot of wapato, a starchy root that grows in low lands.

They were know as the healthiest, sturdiest people. Disease was virtually unknown, despite what is often a cold and nasty climate. The white who came got very sick, but the natives could travel with just a blanket. Sadly almost the entire tribe (thousands upon thousands of people across Oregon) were exterminated by white-brought diseases. My point is native people ate what was available and were extremely healthy. Today we have choices. Probably we are better off choosing as close as we can to their diet. Which is easier said than done!

ETA: Just to clarify, the Chinooks ate mostly meat. The mainstay of their diet was salmon, fresh and then dried and pounded into pemmican or smoked. In the winters they lived on salmon pemmican, dried meats and oils. It was only during spring and summer they could supplement with berries and wapato. They did eat lots of roe and untraditional meats and organs. Also lots of seafood, raw and cooked.

[hummingbird11]

Fawn !!!!!!!!!!!!

RoseofSharon, your very wise post re: the Chinooks made me think of this!

Rhamnus purshiana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cascara Sagrada means "sacred bark" in Spanish. The much more pertinent name chitticum means "sh*t come" in Chinook Jargon; chittam comes from the Chinook Jargon phrase chittam stick = "laxative tree" which is similarly from the English word "sh*t".



Long used as a laxative by Native American groups of the northwest Pacific coast, chitticum bark or Cascara Sagrada was accepted in medical practice in the United States in 1877, and by 1890 had replaced the berries of the European Buckthorn (R. catharticus) as a commonly used laxative. It has been the principal ingredient in many commercial, over-the-counter laxatives in North American pharmacies. On May 9, 2002, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule banning the use of aloe and cascara sagrada as laxative ingredients in over-the-counter drug products[2].

The bark is harvested mostly from wild trees; over-harvesting in the middle 1900s eliminated mature trees near many settled areas. Once stripped from the tree, the bark is aged for about 1 year to make its effect milder.

[hummingbird11]

I'll with ya!

Hey, I was a veggie for 15 years, too.
I think that's how I packed on 20 lbs.
We ate a lot of beans & rice & pasta!

Originally Posted by legrandeginge

Hey Fawn

So so true. Except i dont take vitamins as i dont trust what's in them either and i'm not overly convinced that we even absorb vitamins in pill form well.

I buy all my meat from an organic farm, grazing on National Heritage Land (uk) being raised the old fashioned way. It all tastes mighty yummy too i might add. I speak to the farmer every week and i've visited the farm myself. Some say i'm neurotic, but i say i have very right to make sure i eat clean, natural meat!!!?

I visited the states recently for the first time and i had my first encounter with a "non-dairy creamer". I'm still traumatised. I'm not saying there are no issues with the food quality in England, because there are. However, visting California, i had no idea where to buy decent quality anything and i have never eaten such cheap, chemical, foul tasting food in my life.

Actually i'd quite like to run around in a wood, wearing a loin cloth and shaking a stick...whose with me??? ha

Louweewoo yeah i never swallowed Darwinianism. But value it as a starting block, all theories are only as good as the theory they are debunked by i say!! As for vegetarianism...i just cant believe how much healthier and more energised i feel since becoming a carnivore. I've always eaten healthily and was eating organic before anyone knew what GM was (my parents grew their own veg, my mum shunned antibiotics, hell if i needed medicine i got boiled garlic!) but i feel WAY WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY healthier now!!! woo woo

[jacksmixedtape]

Originally Posted by Elloise

At some point, you have to look at your own body and adjust. I don't care which rung fruit and wheat are on - I can't eat them, not ever.

I thought this too at one point--that was before I fell off the LC wagon!

Now I honestly do have everything in moderation, indulging occasionally when I'm out with friends and getting right back on plan afterward. Before when I ate all clean all the time, I would consume too many calories to lose, and would still feel deprived at times. Tweaking your WOE can be a constant work in progress! Even though I thought I did better not eating forbidden foods, it turns out I have to schedule them in (always in public!). Helps me to stay on track that other 90% of the time.

Just sharing my experience, as a former "all low carb natural food, all the time!" eater. The strict adherence ended up backfiring after a couple years.

[Kiley2801]

Fruit has no place in a weight loss phase - may pre-maintenance or maintenance - but for weight loss? Who are we kidding.

I think the millions upon millions of people who have lost weight whilst eating fruit might disagree with you.

Just a guess though.

[legrandeginge]

Originally Posted by Kiley2801

I think the millions upon millions of people who have lost weight whilst eating fruit might disagree with you.

Just a guess though.

Playing devils advocate here. But the millions upon millions that you quote must also be included in the millions of millions who gain it all back again!! Studies have shown that most long term weight loss programmes are unsuccessful and lead to long term gain. Reducing calories in any combination of types of food will lead to some weight loss. I had a friend who lost masses of weight eating nothing but chocolate.

And not to say that low carbers dont re-gain but that's a complicated issue too (tends to be more about how hard is is to eat in such an unconventional way, and carbs having a psychological association).

Fructose is well known in it's role in fat storage and it is a common misperception that fructose is somehow healthier than sucrose. I didn't read anyone saying "dont eat fruit" just "i cant eat fruit" and "fruit was only eaten seasonally and helped us gain a few pounds for winter". It might sound controversial but there's quite a lot of biological evidence to support that statement. As mentioned earlier in this thread, modern fruit has also been bred over many many years to be much much sweeter than they are naturally and subsequently to contain much higher levels of fructose.

[Looweewoo]

To me, most modern fruit is nothing but chewy sugar water.

If people ate a few tart fruits in season, it would be quite different. But having what amounts to Genetically Modified fruit readily available every day is, IMO, part of the problem.

And, yes, for me, there's the added Blood Sugar problem with the attendant cycle of cravings. Odd to think that at one point, I was a devout Fruitarian.

[Elloise]

Originally Posted by jacksmixedtape

I thought this too at one point--that was before I fell off the LC wagon!

I agree - but other than by not eating fruit and wheat (and about 1/2 dozen other items) that doesn't mean I should replace it with non-LC items.

p.s. Lauren - My 83 yr old DF looooooooves your gluten-free vanilla cupcakes. I made them for his birthday and yes, I had a half of one, too!!!! I was just a little less VLC that day!

[Kathy_de_Alabama]

Here is a picture of a friend of mine named Margot who lost 40# on Zero Carb, No Exercise, No fruit.

[hemlock]

Originally Posted by Kathy_de_Alabama

Here is a picture of a friend of mine named Margot who lost 40# on Zero Carb, No Exercise, No fruit.

Wow, she looks amazing!

I think she's in her mid-40's but you wouldn't know by looking at her.

She's a great example of the excellent health ZC brings.

[Ace-of-Steak]

I eat far less than 5 carbs per day. No fruits or vegetation. The few carbs I do ingest, come via small amounts of cheese and/or eggs when I'm in the mood for them.

My main staple is quality beef and animal fat... The Food of Champions

[Kathy_de_Alabama]

Originally Posted by hemlock

Wow, she looks amazing!

I think she's in her mid-40's but you wouldn't know by looking at her.

She's a great example of the excellent health ZC brings.

She is 44.

[Daryl]

Originally Posted by Kathy_de_Alabama

Here is a picture of a friend of mine named Margot who lost 40# on Zero Carb, No Exercise, No fruit.

She has done some incredible work!

[2big4mysize]

she looks great but if those are her kids then I got to disagree with you about the no exercise statement. She has been exercising all along keeping up with them. exercise
She is getting lots of resistance training too carrying those youngens as the grow older too!

doesn't have to be formal in the gym time or using a video.

[hilltownmom]

She looks and is, incredible.

No counting, no logging...life on ZC is great!

[Kathy_de_Alabama]

Originally Posted by 2big4mysize

she looks great but if those are her kids then I got to disagree with you about the no exercise statement. She has been exercising all along keeping up with them. exercise
She is getting lots of resistance training too carrying those youngens as the grow older too!

doesn't have to be formal in the gym time or using a video.

yes, those are her adorable kids. I almost cropped them out but they look so healthy and happy, too, I couldn't resist leaving them in. Yes, they keep her "running." So, ok, no 'other' exercise for Margot.

[CurlsNCuffs]

If I keep my carbs low - I do very good. Once I start raising them, even with veggies - I can go crazy! Feel like I want to chew my arm off.....

[Lise]

Here is another shot of Margot that shows her arm definition better.

Remember folks these are the results you can get from giving up plant matter and formal exercise.

Margot is an inspiration.