Low Carb Friends  
Netrition.com - Tools - Reviews - Faces - Recipes - Home


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Main Lowcarb Lobby
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-23-2014, 06:01 PM   #61
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,752
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie51 View Post
Back to what I posted earlier about the food industry in this country. They have us believing that anything they label as "healthy source of whole grains" is good for us. "You get so many grams of whole grains in one serving!" Wow, the more the better, or so they would have us think. As long as TV networks are delivering that message from food companies who are supposed to care about our health (hah!), we're going to gobble it up. Especially since these "healthy whole grains" are terribly addictive (and taste good too), so we're happy to gobble it up. Unfortunately, it's all a load of crap.
Why else would there be wheat in ice cream if it were not to add to the addictive qualities of the product?
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 08-23-2014, 08:28 PM   #62
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,625
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by theredhead View Post
What jumped out at me immediately about this article was the error of Number #2, stating that we NEED carbohydrates in our diet, and listing all the reasons why. What's being overlooked is a very cool process we humans have called gluconeogenesis. I've copied and pasted just a little bit of an article from Dr. Michael Eades' (co-author of Protein Power) blog. I think it explains it well.

Not to worry, the body can make glucose from protein and, to a small extent, even from fat in a process called gluconeogenesis (making new sugar) that takes place in the liver. In fact, when it gets going the liver can crank out 200+ grams per day (a little over a cup), which is more than enough for all the glucose-dependent cells even if we weren’t eating any carbs at all. This ability of the liver to make plenty of sugar is what allows the Inuit, the Masai, and other groups of hunter populations to survive nicely for most of their lives on almost no carbohydrates at all. And it is this same ability that makes low-carb diets work as well as they do.

I also want to point out that so many of the studies done on low carb diets do not actually put people on truly low carb diets. If you're eating a ton of carbs and calling it low carb, it's not good data. My 2 cents.....
I want to add to this, and it might be taken wrongly, but bear with me.
Gluconeogenesis is the AWESOME!

The idea that we "need" carbohydrates in our diet is not an absolute untruth.

I'm coming a this from a purely practical matter. I've been doing a Protein Sparing Modified Fast that depends on me keeping my carbohydrates so low that my body must use gluconeogenesis to operate. I protect myself by eating enough protein to power this process and preserve my own lean muscle tissue. This is one method of weight loss that not only limits carbohydrates but also calories through fat reduction to the minimal body needs.

For most of the fast, it is ideal situation, but after a while it can become a burden as the body down regulates the metabolism to account for the lack of calories and weigh loss slows. I was reading a text by Lyle McDonald, and his text confirmed something I was unsure of before: that if the body has a severe deficit of either calories or carbs or both, that thyroid hormones will after a time slow down production and slow the metabolism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle McDonalds The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook pdf pages 48 and 70
Carbohydrates need to be raised to at least 100 grams per day (more if you’reexercising) as this is necessary to upregulate thyroid hormone levels.... As well, since leptin appears to be sensitive to carbohydrate intake (along with total calories), raising carbs will help raise leptin further helping to fix metabolic rate.
Now, before everyone screams heresy I must point out that this carb threshhold is STILL much lower than SAD in fact it is an amount that is at the very edge of the high end of what is considered low carb; a level that someone who is maintaining their weigh might use. And in fact this is a recommendation for someone coming off of a fast of as low as 500-800 calories, so is not necessarily advice for the general public....or anyone who is insulin sensitive or have other issues prohibitive of such a level. And also granted, in a Ketone adapted body with out a calorie deficit, the body may be able to make enough of that carbohydrate to prevent the issue. I only point it out because of my specific situation. Again, not a general Low Carb Issue.

Personally, Once I've done that I plan to use PSMF to try to get to my ideal weight and then maintain it with LCHF WOE, at which point my carbs and fat will increase to a level where I won't have to worry about hormone downregulation blah blah.

So with that I can say, that the body has no need for carbs to function, but some carbs may be needed to function "optimally" (baring other issues...), but nowhere is it required that those carbs must be large in quantity or grain in quality. Roots, leafy veg, summer fruits, winter fruits and tree fruits and berries can fill this need. Grain are famine food. That doesn't mean I will never eat grain based foods again, just that I do not want or need to base my regular diet upon them. Not until the next famine comes....
__________________
"You have to understand zat ven a vampire forgoes . . .the b-vord, zere is a process zat ve call transference? Zey force Zemselves to desire somesing else? . . .But your friend chose . . . coffee. And now he has none." "You can find him some coffee, or . . .you can keep a vooden stake and a big knife ready. You vould be doink him a favor, believe me." Monstrous Regiment by Terry Pratchett
IBKKF 898

Last edited by metqa; 08-23-2014 at 08:30 PM..
metqa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2014, 11:37 PM   #63
Major LCF Poster!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,847
Gallery: Blue Skies
Stats: 224/177/165 - 5'11"
WOE: LC my way
Start Date: Feb, 2013
Metqa---I actually think the body DOES want SOME carbs. I could bore y'all w/why I think so, regarding my own personal experience, but I'll spare you that.

But then, in the words of Phinney and Volek, a "well regulated" LC woe has NEVER been about NO carbs.

I think it is important to NOT see carbs as the enemy, to the point where we feel we must dump them altogether. IMO, absolutely no need for that, and probably not the healthiest thing.

W/out boring y'all, I know that at times, still, carbs help me along. BUT, when I say that I mean a looooooooooong distance from where I once was on the very high side of the SAD---when and where carbs were what I lived on.

That proved to A.) make me fat, and B.)make me pre-diabetic. So, for me, that won't work.

BUT, I do find the time and place for carbs in my life, now and then. I don't make a religion of hating or being afraid of carbs. I just KNOW that for me, an inveterate X carb hound, that I could not continue the way I had.

Still, I DO enjoy carbs now and then. I DON'T worry about the berries, and I have them a couple times a week, w/hwc, either whipped or in liquid form. I also DON'T worry about the vegetables I eat.

IMO, being a zealot against carbs is somehow as bad as being a carb hound. I think we all have to find our way here. AND, no matter what they say about all the historical cultures that lived totally w/out carbs, my guess is that we are privileged to enjoy the better side of carbs---as in robust vegetables and berries---things not available to our fore bearers.

It's just NOT black and white, for anyone. Don't we wish it were--- it would then be so much easier. But imo, like in everything in life, our challenge is to moderate. MUCH harder to do than it sounds, when it comes to what we naturally love.

My goal is to continue to lose weight to my goal, but also, not make my life and how I eat all about restriction. Been there, done that, doesn't work for me. I'm no spring chicken, but I still welcome the challenge of how to do this better. Makes me feel young again, as in there are still plenty of things I have yet to learn and conquer.

I really hope to continue to lead a LC lifestyle, but that doesn't mean NO carbs. To me it just means choosing the healthiest and best carbs, and making that work, and NEVER again letting them be my boss.

I'd like to think that the way I've evolved, if still far from perfect, is that
__________________
There is no success that doesn't have persistence to thank...it's the muscle behind almost everything.
Blue Skies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 04:44 AM   #64
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,625
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
Blue Skies, I'd LOVE for you to bore me. If not in thread, maybe in a P.M.? If you have the time and inclination... I'm always seeking information and anecdotes to add to may arsenal of ideas.
metqa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 06:22 AM   #65
Major LCF Poster!
 
theredhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 2,576
Gallery: theredhead
Stats: 229/147/145
WOE: Atkins/hCG/maintaining EASILY with JUDDD
Start Date: 09/04/03
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Skies View Post
Metqa---I actually think the body DOES want SOME carbs. I could bore y'all w/why I think so, regarding my own personal experience, but I'll spare you that.

But then, in the words of Phinney and Volek, a "well regulated" LC woe has NEVER been about NO carbs.

I think it is important to NOT see carbs as the enemy, to the point where we feel we must dump them altogether. IMO, absolutely no need for that, and probably not the healthiest thing.

W/out boring y'all, I know that at times, still, carbs help me along. BUT, when I say that I mean a looooooooooong distance from where I once was on the very high side of the SAD---when and where carbs were what I lived on.

That proved to A.) make me fat, and B.)make me pre-diabetic. So, for me, that won't work.

BUT, I do find the time and place for carbs in my life, now and then. I don't make a religion of hating or being afraid of carbs. I just KNOW that for me, an inveterate X carb hound, that I could not continue the way I had.

Still, I DO enjoy carbs now and then. I DON'T worry about the berries, and I have them a couple times a week, w/hwc, either whipped or in liquid form. I also DON'T worry about the vegetables I eat.

IMO, being a zealot against carbs is somehow as bad as being a carb hound. I think we all have to find our way here. AND, no matter what they say about all the historical cultures that lived totally w/out carbs, my guess is that we are privileged to enjoy the better side of carbs---as in robust vegetables and berries---things not available to our fore bearers.

It's just NOT black and white, for anyone. Don't we wish it were--- it would then be so much easier. But imo, like in everything in life, our challenge is to moderate. MUCH harder to do than it sounds, when it comes to what we naturally love.

My goal is to continue to lose weight to my goal, but also, not make my life and how I eat all about restriction. Been there, done that, doesn't work for me. I'm no spring chicken, but I still welcome the challenge of how to do this better. Makes me feel young again, as in there are still plenty of things I have yet to learn and conquer.

I really hope to continue to lead a LC lifestyle, but that doesn't mean NO carbs. To me it just means choosing the healthiest and best carbs, and making that work, and NEVER again letting them be my boss.

I'd like to think that the way I've evolved, if still far from perfect, is that
I couldn't have said it better!
theredhead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 06:49 AM   #66
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 722
Gallery: Ronnie51
Quote:
Originally Posted by metqa View Post
I want to add to this, and it might be taken wrongly, but bear with me.
Gluconeogenesis is the AWESOME!


Now, before everyone screams heresy I must point out that this carb threshhold is STILL much lower than SAD in fact it is an amount that is at the very edge of the high end of what is considered low carb; a level that someone who is maintaining their weigh might use. And in fact this is a recommendation for someone coming off of a fast of as low as 500-800 calories, so is not necessarily advice for the general public....or anyone who is insulin sensitive or have other issues prohibitive of such a level. And also granted, in a Ketone adapted body with out a calorie deficit, the body may be able to make enough of that carbohydrate to prevent the issue. I only point it out because of my specific situation. Again, not a general Low Carb Issue.
Do you mean "insulin resistant"?
Ronnie51 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 07:42 AM   #67
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,752
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by metqa View Post
I want to add to this, and it might be taken wrongly, but bear with me.
Gluconeogenesis is the AWESOME!

The idea that we "need" carbohydrates in our diet is not an absolute untruth.

I'm coming a this from a purely practical matter. I've been doing a Protein Sparing Modified Fast that depends on me keeping my carbohydrates so low that my body must use gluconeogenesis to operate. I protect myself by eating enough protein to power this process and preserve my own lean muscle tissue. This is one method of weight loss that not only limits carbohydrates but also calories through fat reduction to the minimal body needs.

For most of the fast, it is ideal situation, but after a while it can become a burden as the body down regulates the metabolism to account for the lack of calories and weigh loss slows. I was reading a text by Lyle McDonald, and his text confirmed something I was unsure of before: that if the body has a severe deficit of either calories or carbs or both, that thyroid hormones will after a time slow down production and slow the metabolism.

Now, before everyone screams heresy I must point out that this carb threshhold is STILL much lower than SAD in fact it is an amount that is at the very edge of the high end of what is considered low carb; a level that someone who is maintaining their weigh might use. And in fact this is a recommendation for someone coming off of a fast of as low as 500-800 calories, so is not necessarily advice for the general public....or anyone who is insulin sensitive or have other issues prohibitive of such a level. And also granted, in a Ketone adapted body with out a calorie deficit, the body may be able to make enough of that carbohydrate to prevent the issue. I only point it out because of my specific situation. Again, not a general Low Carb Issue.

Personally, Once I've done that I plan to use PSMF to try to get to my ideal weight and then maintain it with LCHF WOE, at which point my carbs and fat will increase to a level where I won't have to worry about hormone downregulation blah blah.

So with that I can say, that the body has no need for carbs to function, but some carbs may be needed to function "optimally" (baring other issues...), but nowhere is it required that those carbs must be large in quantity or grain in quality. Roots, leafy veg, summer fruits, winter fruits and tree fruits and berries can fill this need. Grain are famine food. That doesn't mean I will never eat grain based foods again, just that I do not want or need to base my regular diet upon them. Not until the next famine comes....
While I appreciate what you have presented here, I have yet to hear a logical explanation and evidence as to the theory as to why and what. I am more convinced through Dr. Thomas Segfried's work that ketosis is the most 'optimal' state for many reasons and he has the scientific studies to back it up. This means that 100 grams of carbs would not allow for ketosis and to me that is not optimal.

For anyone who would like to read a breakdown of Dr. Seigfried's work (Cancer as a Metabolic Disease), there is a great blogger (who is also an M.D.) who makes this work readable and understandable to the average person. The book is actually a text book and therefore quite expensive to purchase. The blogger is 'diagnosis diet'.
__________________
Cathy
Original start - Feb. 2000 180/125

"The energy content of food (calories) matters, but it is less important than the metabolic effect of food on our body." Dr. P. Attia

"dumping carbohydrates on your broken metabolism is tantamount to doing jumping jacks on two broken legs" -The Spark of Reason

“Eat animals. Mostly fat. Enjoy!
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 08:52 AM   #68
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,625
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie51 View Post
Do you mean "insulin resistant"?
Yes, that's what I meant! I was thinking carb sensitive and insulin resistant at the same time, and typed it wrong.
metqa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 09:32 AM   #69
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,625
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by clackley View Post
While I appreciate what you have presented here, I have yet to hear a logical explanation and evidence as to the theory as to why and what. I am more convinced through Dr. Thomas Segfried's work that ketosis is the most 'optimal' state for many reasons and he has the scientific studies to back it up. This means that 100 grams of carbs would not allow for ketosis and to me that is not optimal.

For anyone who would like to read a breakdown of Dr. Seigfried's work (Cancer as a Metabolic Disease), there is a great blogger (who is also an M.D.) who makes this work readable and understandable to the average person. The book is actually a text book and therefore quite expensive to purchase. The blogger is 'diagnosis diet'.
Well, the key issue here is that the person eating 100g of carbs a day, after being on a severely carb, fat, and calorie restrictive diet for several weeks, is not striving for ketosis or a keto-adapted state. They are coming OUT of that state on purpose. There are two different things going on.

( Besides the fact that Ketosis is not just the state of throwing off ketones, but of the body creating ketones from Free Fatty Acids, you can be in ketosis without having excess ketones, and people can and do go into and out of ketosis regularly. It is Sustained Ketosis that is the basis of Low Carb Weight loss plans )

The 100g of carbs is in reference metabolic function not to ketosis. The premise being that a person who has been eating less than 100g of carb, less than 1200Kcal or both is going to eventually have to deal with the down regulating activity level.

Quote:
decreased nervous system output (which is often below normal in obesity to begin with, a metabolic ‘defect’ if you will), thyroid hormone (which may be low to begin with), leptin, insulin and others. When you diet, it simply turns out that all of those systems decrease below normal, causing the adaptive decrease in metabolic rate.

and again, I mentioned that I was talking also about a specific situation of Very Low Calorie, Low Carb, Low Fat Diet, Not the typical Low carber eating 50% or greater fat and calories near maintenance.

In all, I was saying that dietary carbs affect some functions of the body despite the aggressive tendency we have to say that we need NO carbs. We Do need blood glucose and that can be provided with NO dietary carbs. We do need Calories, but we've accepted that we don't HAVE to go extreme low calorie if we don't want to. But in the case that one goes low carb and low calorie that some things will not function the same and it is not always optimal when things are extreme.

My statement is not about ketosis versus SAD, or Low carb Vs Carb Loading, just that some parts of our bodies functions are affected by dietary carb and calorie levels, whether we like it or not.

Another perspective, Why do people have to be SO careful after coming off a restrictive diet? Because something has changed. We all know it. People say " I stopped the diet and gained more than I lost". If the body's functions did not change then why would that happen. We take advantage of the bodies reaction to lowered carbs, but that doesn't mean the body is fully happy with the changes, and it compensates for the restrictions. Otherwise no one would ever gain weight again after stopping a reduction diet. People complain that " They can't eat the same amount as before or they gain explosively." Some of that may be due to the fact that they are smaller and some may be cause their body slowed down so much that it needs less energy to function, a survival technique, and the person no longer wants to "survive" on a pittance of food.

So when I say that, in my plan, I've been advised to increase my carbs to 100g, I'm talking about MY plan, not everybody else's different plan. It is not that I'm trying to stay in ketosis or even lose weight at this point, it's because I'm convincing my body that the famine is over and it doesn't need to slow down anymore. ( I plan to resume a PSMF and would like to not have my body fighting me most of the time) It's actually not much different than Dr. Atkins telling people to climb the carb ladder till they find their Critical Carb level where they neither gain nor lose. I'm not diabetic,nor epileptic, nor allergic, nor insulin resistant, nor Inuit, i don't need to stay keto adapted longer than I need to lose weight. At that point I want to increase my activity, exercise more,increase my muscle mass and some of that is facilitated by consuming more carbohydratess than I would consume in order to lose weight. Two different states of being. Maintenance and Weight loss.

Last edited by metqa; 08-24-2014 at 09:34 AM..
metqa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 10:19 AM   #70
GME
Big Yapper!!!!
 
GME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CA Coast
Posts: 9,555
Gallery: GME
Stats: 250/166/175 Trying again...223/211/146 5'7
WOE: Misc.
Start Date: April 2000 (the first time)
I was on a VLC diet 12 or so years ago for several months ("keto" wasn't popular, but that's probably what it was). I felt better than ever (than I did on the SAD) and lost weight. I got a case of some kind of food poisoning or stomach bug and all I could keep down was saltines. I was sick for 3 days, eating a few crackers each day..... and I gained weight. I could have eaten that many for lunch before that and maintained. Something definitely changed.

I know about glycogen and water weight and all that, but seriously, gain weight with the stomach flu? I got frustrated, quit, and gained EVERYTHING back (which I know wasn't wise at all) in record time. I mean, like pulling the cord on a life raft fast. Something in me was messed up if my body saw a few saltines (and I really do mean a few) as something to hold on to for dear life.

I tried keto again years later and felt just kind of off. I since figured out I have a dairy intolerance and I was eating a lot of greek yogurt, sour cream, cream cheese, etc so that may have been the issue, but I just don't think VLC is for me.

For those of us here on this site it isn't the choice between 15 carbs and 300 carbs in the form of cereal and pasta. If that's the choice, of course 15 would be better. For me (and probably many others here), it is a choice between 15 carbs and 75 carbs. I feel better, have an easier time out in the world, and maintain better on 75. Do I "need" carbs to survive? Probably not, but I also don't "need" a lot of things to survive day to day that keep me healthier in the long run.

To the original topic- the article is hogwash and is probably written by someone who "just can't" give up her pasta and is looking for a way to justify her habit.
__________________
Gina

3/24/14- She is Beautiful 10k- I won!, 7/27/14- Wharf to Wharf (6 miles)- I won!
9/14/14- Title 9K- I won!
11/9/14- Surfer's Path 10K, 4/12/15- Santa Cruz Half Marathon

*My definition of win: I didn't quit, didn't throw up, and they didn't close the course on me.
GME is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 10:53 AM   #71
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,625
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
Quote:
For those of us here on this site it isn't the choice between 15 carbs and 300 carbs in the form of cereal and pasta. If that's the choice, of course 15 would be better. For me (and probably many others here), it is a choice between 15 carbs and 75 carbs. I feel better, have an easier time out in the world, and maintain better on 75. Do I "need" carbs to survive? Probably not, but I also don't "need" a lot of things to survive day to day that keep me healthier in the long run.
metqa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 11:47 AM   #72
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,752
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
Thank you for taking the time and effort to explain in detail what your message is. I think both your's and Gina's post are fantastic!

I wish the science were there on all the points made (mine included) but it is not yet. And maybe never, as each individual has a unique metabolic history and genetics making it difficult to say one thing is true for everyone (aside from getting the junk out of the diet).

I had to laugh at the sad but true visual of pulling the cord on a inflatable raft! That was my experience too - only I didn't just regain the lost lbs., but another 45 or so and with alarming speed. So yes, something had changed. Could it have been the enormous chronic stress I was experiencing at the time or maybe plainly, the down regulated systems you describe.... maybe a combination of the 2.

At any rate, while in ketosis, I don't need to worry about any of those things happening and I don't have to worry about hunger. That is what is working for me at the moment. My body is without a doubt broken and a lot of it is due to carbohydrate abuse. It makes no sense to add something back that damaged me to begin with.
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 11:57 AM   #73
Senior LCF member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 9,602
Gallery: Leo41
Stats: 340 then/145 now
WOE: Low carb/calorie cycling
metqa-
I'm familiar with PSMF, so I know what you're describing in needing to increase carbs.

This idea that we have to 'trick' the body to avoid down-regulation is common in other plans as well. For example, it's the basis of JUDDD. Calories are very low only on alternate days because the science shows that it takes the body a minimum of 48 hrs. and closer to 60 hrs. to respond to very low calories. By 'feeding' more within that window, the body doesn't down-regulate.

Many years ago, when I first began seriously low carbing, I read an article by an MD (name forgotten) to claimed to have worked with Dr. Atkins. He advised anyone eating 20g carbs a day (my limit) to have a 'high carb' day every 6-8 weeks to 'reset' the body (although I don't recall all his reasons). I did that throughout my weight loss and even though I remain low carb in maintenance, I continue to have the very occasional high carb day. While I don't know whether it
helps, it hasn't presented any problems for me.
Leo41 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 06:33 PM   #74
Senior LCF Member
 
mirroravoider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 839
Gallery: mirroravoider
Stats: 161/155/136
WOE: Low Carb/Moderate Calories
Start Date: 08/11/14
Bottom line science (unrefuted) -- you must burn more calories than you consume to lose weigt. It's all about choices. You can choose to load up on carb-rich/low fat foods and be challenged with cravings all the time, or you can choose a more realistic and achievable plan that helps to control those urges (low carb). Hard truth -- you will need to reduce your calorie intake by 3500 per week to lose a pound. It was a hard reality for me, but it's a fact.
mirroravoider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 06:40 PM   #75
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,625
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
Oh Yeah, JUDDD. I hadn't thought about it that way before. Thanks for the reminder, Leo.
metqa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 06:45 PM   #76
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,625
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
Nobody has been able to find the source for the claim that 3500 calories equals a pound of loss. It's one of those "everybody knows" that started long ago and no one knows who , where or why. Look it up, it's a mystery.
This is the closest explanation to why it might be true
1lb does not equal 3,500 calories | Zoe Harcombe
metqa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 07:36 PM   #77
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,625
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
The Calorie Theory - prove it or lose it
metqa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 07:50 PM   #78
Major LCF Poster!
 
Ocean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,069
Gallery: Ocean
Stats: 240/144/ Below 145 5'1.5"
WOE: General Low Carb
Start Date: June 2010
I for sure don't agree with the part about carbs slowing aging. I've been eating low carb for a few years now. I'm 42 and people are generally shocked to hear my age. Most people assume that I am in my late 20's.
Ocean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 08:07 PM   #79
GME
Big Yapper!!!!
 
GME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CA Coast
Posts: 9,555
Gallery: GME
Stats: 250/166/175 Trying again...223/211/146 5'7
WOE: Misc.
Start Date: April 2000 (the first time)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirroravoider View Post
Bottom line science (unrefuted) -- you must burn more calories than you consume to lose weigt. It's all about choices. You can choose to load up on carb-rich/low fat foods and be challenged with cravings all the time, or you can choose a more realistic and achievable plan that helps to control those urges (low carb). Hard truth -- you will need to reduce your calorie intake by 3500 per week to lose a pound. It was a hard reality for me, but it's a fact.
Actually, it is quite refuted.
GME is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2014, 05:02 AM   #80
Senior LCF Member
 
Michread's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 70
Gallery: Michread
Stats: 210/199/190 (11/1/14); 5'7", 51 yof
WOE: Atkins/LCHF
Start Date: July 2014; 6 yrs Atkins success/failure
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirroravoider View Post
Bottom line science (unrefuted) -- you must burn more calories than you consume to lose weigt. It's all about choices.

It was a hard reality for me, but it's a fact.
It's NOT a fact! Watch the research on "Is Sugar Toxic - 60 Minutes" prove in her study that a calorie is NOT a calorie.
Michread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2014, 05:15 AM   #81
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,752
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
There was a recent documentary in which a man's getting into ketosis and staying there (over a couple of months) and they were able to demonstrate that his metabolic rate had increased. It would be really useful to know if that advantage persisted with long term ketosis (say over a year or more...).

Last edited by clackley; 08-25-2014 at 05:22 AM..
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2014, 05:34 AM   #82
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,752
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
It is also interesting (to me at least), that I have discovered that a single 'non-keto' meal will not knock me out of ketosis. I have confirmed that with blood ketone testing. I also don't appear to nearly so carb sensitive. Clearly a case of 'things changing'.
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2014, 07:06 AM   #83
Senior LCF Member
 
Michread's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 70
Gallery: Michread
Stats: 210/199/190 (11/1/14); 5'7", 51 yof
WOE: Atkins/LCHF
Start Date: July 2014; 6 yrs Atkins success/failure
Quote:
Originally Posted by clackley View Post
It is also interesting (to me at least), that I have discovered that a single 'non-keto' meal will not knock me out of ketosis. I have confirmed that with blood ketone testing. I also don't appear to nearly so carb sensitive. Clearly a case of 'things changing'.
I hope that the body heals itself and becomes more able to regulate once the system is balanced because it's not being abused by over consumption on a daily basis.
Michread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2014, 07:15 AM   #84
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,752
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
Dr. Lutz talks about this concept of healing in his book "Life Without Bread". He stated that some of his patients with colitis were the patients who took the longest to reverse their disease but after about 8 yrs., they did indeed reverse it.

When you think about it, it makes sense because cells do replace themselves over various times (some are in the constant state of replacement - like those that line our stomachs or our skin) and others take longer. But the cells replace themselves or remodel and that may take years of this to get to a healthier state..... Interesting theory and because a lot of his work was clinical, I tend to believe it.
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2014, 07:44 AM   #85
GME
Big Yapper!!!!
 
GME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CA Coast
Posts: 9,555
Gallery: GME
Stats: 250/166/175 Trying again...223/211/146 5'7
WOE: Misc.
Start Date: April 2000 (the first time)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michread View Post
I hope that the body heals itself and becomes more able to regulate once the system is balanced because it's not being abused by over consumption on a daily basis.
I think mine did. I told the story upthread about gaining with the stomach flu. That time I had been low carb for probably 3, maybe 4 months.

Now I have a much higher carb tolerance after having been low(er) carb for many years.

I have also identified several food intolerances that I didn't know about back then. Maybe cutting out the inflamation offenders is doing more for me than being low carb. Maybe it is a combination. Who knows? We are all so complex inside.

I do know that it is much more than calories in = calories out.
GME is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2014, 08:34 AM   #86
Major LCF Poster!
 
Aomiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,569
Gallery: Aomiel
Stats: 330/140/140 A1c 4.8
WOE: Bernstein (Maintenance)
Start Date: January 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by nurseypoo5 View Post
It sounds like what a nutritionist would preach to you based on the food ladder the government pushes on the obese USA. How's that working for everyone? Not so much.
Yep...this is what they tried to stuff down my throat when I was getting my degree. So I switched over to a CCN which emphasizes there is no one right diet for everyone. The diet should meet the individual's needs. However, even that program tended to go for the lower fat, higher carb WOE. It's not what I teach so I'm probably considered a heretic.
Aomiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2014, 06:39 PM   #87
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,625
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
I for sure don't agree with the part about carbs slowing aging. I've been eating low carb for a few years now. I'm 42 and people are generally shocked to hear my age. Most people assume that I am in my late 20's.
I missed that part, Carbs slow aging?

Quote:
Originally Posted by clackley View Post
It is also interesting (to me at least), that I have discovered that a single 'non-keto' meal will not knock me out of ketosis. I have confirmed that with blood ketone testing. I also don't appear to nearly so carb sensitive. Clearly a case of 'things changing'.
That's great.
metqa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2014, 09:20 PM   #88
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 194
Gallery: nanoparty!
Quote:
Originally Posted by metqa View Post
Nano, I think when people say vegetable based diets, they define grains and starchy roots as vegetables, like when some say meat they also mean organ tissue. Like when a person claims to be vegetarian but eats mostly grain/seed instead of actual plant parts or roots. Or a meat bases society, but they also eat liver, heart, and other organs. A person eating mostly meat and the above ground vegetative and fruiting part of plants (not seeds and roots) will have a pretty much healthy diet over someone eating mostly seeds and roots and sugary fruits of the vegetable. The exception being berries which are the seeds also.
Ah yes, ok, that's what I was thinking it was probably referring to. The vegetarians who are heavy on grains and root veggies, etc etc. Are seeds really that bad, though?
nanoparty! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2014, 09:29 PM   #89
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 194
Gallery: nanoparty!
Also, just a general question: when people here are referring to increasing carbs, do we specifically mean effective carbs, or just total carbs, like eating a bunch more salad or fiber-heavy items?
nanoparty! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2014, 09:31 PM   #90
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 194
Gallery: nanoparty!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo41 View Post
Ronnie-
I can only address your issue based on what my endo would say. Your high A1C [6.0] would indicate diabetes to him, and it likely would have prescribed Metformin and a low carb diet to try to get it back within the range of 5.

I only know this because he monitors me carefully because of the diabetes in my family. I have a relatively high fasting BG (low 90s), and I've read (and my endo agrees) that this is common among low carbers. It's similar to the Dawn Phenomenon of diabetics where our BG gets too low as we sleep, and the liver dumps glucose. So he goes by my A1C, which ranges from 5.0-5.4, and he is satisfied. But I know that at 6.0, he would be very 'concerned' and likely prescribe Rx.

Didn't your doctor mention this?
Hmm, really? A higher fasting for low-carbers? I tend to have a relatively high fasting too, like around yours (endlessly frustrating for me) but my A1C is usually around 4.8 - 5.3. But then again, I know that the A1C can be rife with problems that affect accuracy, so I always worry about this. And I'm not that low carb. Man, bodies are complicated.
nanoparty! is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:01 AM.


Copyright ©1999-2014 Friends Forums LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
LowCarbFriends® is a registered mark of Friends Forums, LLC.