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


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Inspiration and Wisdom > Recommended Reading
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-19-2013, 04:23 PM   #1
Major LCF Poster!
 
avid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: treasure coast
Posts: 1,131
Gallery: avid
Stats: 180/134/131...
WOE: Lotsa veggies and LC
Volek and Phinney

I just got "The art and science of low carbohydrate living" Pretty heady stuff here. Some of it is pretty technical but in other ways it's pretty straight forward.
I'm wondering, those of you who have read it, what was some of the most important, eye opening revelations you got from reading it.
For me it's the info regarding how LDL is determined and other information regarding cholesterol.
What about you?
avid is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 06-19-2013, 04:57 PM   #2
Senior LCF Member
 
astribling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indiana
Posts: 362
Gallery: astribling
Stats: 212/165/169(165 for wiggle room)
WOE: Moderate carbs/no sugar,no wheat
Start Date: June 26, 2012
I just recently read it as well. It is very technical, and I think I may want to read it again to "absorb" everything.

I highlighted quite a few spots as I was reading. And many of them had to with LDL and triglycerides:

One I found quite interesting is that statins do seem to lower LDL, but the impact on decreasing coronary events is much less clear.

Also, that carbs raise triglycerides, not saturated fat.

A lot of what I read, I kind of already knew, but it was good to read the actual science behind it!
astribling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 10:53 PM   #3
.
 
ravenrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,670
Gallery: ravenrose
Stats: lost 130 lb so far, and miles to go before I sleep
WOE: low carb controlled calorie
Start Date: June, 2009
I think it's an poorly written book. The lack of good editing shouts out from every page. There is good stuff in there, but very frustrating to try to pick it out. the book isn't well organized. I was disappointed because I respect these guys a LOT.
ravenrose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 06:28 AM   #4
Major LCF Poster!
 
avid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: treasure coast
Posts: 1,131
Gallery: avid
Stats: 180/134/131...
WOE: Lotsa veggies and LC
Raven....I found the index to be very clear.
astribling.... they actually state on page 40
"Yes, it has been shown that saturated fats in animal or human diets can raise blood cholesterol under some circumstances."
they then go on to poo poo the importance of this....but I applaud their clarity.
I agree that their whole message is that dietary fat is good not bad.
But human dietary metabolism is proving to be (to me at least) a very YMMV paradigm.
I have been vlc for almost 10 months and my LDL and trigs went way up....Clearly, for me at least, it's not JUST the carbs. I am not going back to a carb based woe...too many other benefits from lc...I think my challenge is to find the balance between lc and some fat restriction to optimize my health.
This is challenging, but I am actually enjoying experimenting with my diet.
__________________
Health conscious sixty something since September '12
avid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 11:05 AM   #5
Major LCF Poster!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,945
Gallery: Blue Skies
Stats: 224/175/165 - 5'11"
WOE: LC my way
Start Date: Feb, 2013
Hey avid, if the cholesterol thing interests you I recommend "The Great Cholestorol Myth." I'm about half way through it now. It is much lighter reading than "The Art and Science..." (which I enjoyed but had to skim some of the really technical biology, but I got a lot out of it.) This book is more basic and a very fast, informative read.
Blue Skies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 02:33 PM   #6
Major LCF Poster!
 
avid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: treasure coast
Posts: 1,131
Gallery: avid
Stats: 180/134/131...
WOE: Lotsa veggies and LC
Thanks,
I am interested in cholesterol because I've been taking lipitor and tricor for trigs for many years now.
I'm aware of the controversy surrounding cholesterol, but my research tells me that triglyceride numbers are emerging as THE important risk factor, especially when hdl is low which mine always is.
I have read all about how it's carbs that fuel triglycerides but there MUST be more to it.
My carbs are very low. less than 50 a day and my trig numbers are still high.
So that's where I'm at right now. Still digging for answers because I hate taking meds.
I'm going to try eliminating coconut oil due to the medium chain trigs in it. Maybe it will show up in my numbers.
Gotta keep at it.
Since hitting my weight goal, I can now focus on eating for health as opposed to eating for weight loss. I prefer it like this.
avid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 08:24 PM   #7
Major LCF Poster!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,945
Gallery: Blue Skies
Stats: 224/175/165 - 5'11"
WOE: LC my way
Start Date: Feb, 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by avid View Post
Thanks,
I am interested in cholesterol because I've been taking lipitor and tricor for trigs for many years now.
I'm aware of the controversy surrounding cholesterol, but my research tells me that triglyceride numbers are emerging as THE important risk factor, especially when hdl is low which mine always is.
I have read all about how it's carbs that fuel triglycerides but there MUST be more to it.
My carbs are very low. less than 50 a day and my trig numbers are still high.
So that's where I'm at right now. Still digging for answers because I hate taking meds.
I'm going to try eliminating coconut oil due to the medium chain trigs in it. Maybe it will show up in my numbers.
Gotta keep at it.
Since hitting my weight goal, I can now focus on eating for health as opposed to eating for weight loss. I prefer it like this.
Yes. I agree w/what you say here from what I've read, particularly that it is the trig/HDL ratio that counts the most. Let's face it, hereditary and our own unique genes have ALOT to say about this.

I am about 2 months out from seeing the Doc, after giving myself 6 months on a LC woe to see what it might do for my lipid panels, which were borderline, and indicated the possible need for meds, according to popular medicine. And, that may remain true when I get my tests back after months of LC eating, or not. We'll see.

But I REALLY like knowing more than I used to. IF, my trigs are not reduced by this woe, and my HDL is not significantly up, then I too will need meds. And I accept that. Nothing wrong w/meds as long as you've researched, experimented and tried to avoid them the natural way. But if that doesn't succeed, then we need to be thankful there ARE meds to help us.

Avid, you've done so great w/your weight loss, despite being on whatever meds you need. It's an inspiration. And, I love hearing how you have now transferred your goal from weight loss to better health. I have no doubt you'll do as well w/this, as you did w/your weight loss.

Cheers.
Blue Skies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 06:43 AM   #8
Way too much time on my hands!
 
emel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 17,635
Gallery: emel
Stats: 179.4/158.8/130ish
WOE: Atkins OWL/NK hybrid
Avid and others:

I've watched videos about the book but I've never read it.

Does the book give you the info needed to cypher out what we need to eat for weight loss? I've been puzzled by all the various recommendations about protein and fat, and I'm still looking for my ideal numbers.

I would enjoy the science in the book, I think. But since reading time is precious, I'd like my next book to tell me what quantities are likely the correct ones based on my height, weight, and goal weight.

The biggest issue I have with Phinney and Volek is that a lot of their science has to do with fit people. It's hard to figure out how much fat to eat when I have my own to burn.
__________________
Keep calm and carry on.
emel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 07:39 PM   #9
Major LCF Poster!
 
avid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: treasure coast
Posts: 1,131
Gallery: avid
Stats: 180/134/131...
WOE: Lotsa veggies and LC
Emel.
I was never one to rely on formulas'. . Y'know, the books that tell you to count this and measure that etc. I started out by eliminating all grains and starches. My diet was, and is mostly still is meat, fish, veggies especially green leafy veggies, and cheese.
It sounds pretty boring, but you would be amazed at how much variety you can provide with just those basic ingrediants. I lost alot of weight that way.
avid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 08:58 AM   #10
.
 
ravenrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,670
Gallery: ravenrose
Stats: lost 130 lb so far, and miles to go before I sleep
WOE: low carb controlled calorie
Start Date: June, 2009
I expect eliminating coconut oil will drop your HDL, but then as you say, it's very YMMV.

I am sure the triglyceride thing is a matter of genes and environmental factors, like pretty much everything, as well as what you eat. It is discouraging when you do what works for "everyone else" and it doesn't work for you. I have that in most areas but that is one where I am lucky.

I don't think the lipid numbers you get while on statins are as reassuring as they would be "naturally." As I read the literature, the only people whose actual death rate from heart incidents lowers from statin use are men under 65 with a previous heart attack. I believe it's a case where what we are lowering with statins and measuring in these tests has just a rough relationship with the actual problems.

are you doing the Omega 3 fatty acids from fish oil pills and daily soluble fiber too? these seem to help many people.

best of luck, avid!
__________________
Often I don't come back to read threads where I've posted. If you want me to see something, please send me a private message. Thanks!

Last edited by ravenrose; 06-22-2013 at 08:59 AM..
ravenrose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2013, 06:16 AM   #11
Major LCF Poster!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,685
Gallery: JKat
Start Date: December 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by emel View Post
Avid and others:

I've watched videos about the book but I've never read it.

Does the book give you the info needed to cypher out what we need to eat for weight loss? I've been puzzled by all the various recommendations about protein and fat, and I'm still looking for my ideal numbers.

I would enjoy the science in the book, I think. But since reading time is precious, I'd like my next book to tell me what quantities are likely the correct ones based on my height, weight, and goal weight.

The biggest issue I have with Phinney and Volek is that a lot of their science has to do with fit people. It's hard to figure out how much fat to eat when I have my own to burn.
Emel have you found any specific numbers. I am kinda trying to keep my carbs under 20 protein 70-90 and the rest fat. I am monitoring everything so I can tweak later.
JKat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2013, 06:35 AM   #12
Way too much time on my hands!
 
emel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 17,635
Gallery: emel
Stats: 179.4/158.8/130ish
WOE: Atkins OWL/NK hybrid
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKat View Post
Emel have you found any specific numbers. I am kinda trying to keep my carbs under 20 protein 70-90 and the rest fat. I am monitoring everything so I can tweak later.
Volek and Phinney, in the Art and Science of Low Carb Living, describe it. Here is a shortened rendition of what they say. The book is reasonably priced. I highly recommend it.

Quote:
In order to judge how best to formulate the mix of macro-nutrients in a low carbohydrate diet, it is helpful to visualize how your total energy intake will change from induction to maintenance. a typical male with a BMI of 34 might start out eating 1600 kcal in induction while his body burns 3200 kcal per day (thus the weight loss). But after losing 50 pounds to a BMI of 27, his daily energy intake will need to increase substantially to eventually maintain him stable at that reduced weight... this individual might reasonably be expected to be burning 2800 kcal per day after his 50 pound loss. Now if our ‘big loser’ started out with 150 grams of protein (600 kcal) and 25 grams of carbs (100 kcal) in induction, this 700 kcal totals almost half of his intake, with the rest of the 1600 kcal (56%, or about 100 grams) coming from dietary fat. When he reaches his maintenance weight and is eating 2800 kcal/day, there is neither need nor reason for him to increase his protein intake above 150 grams, which now calculates out as 21% of his total intake. Let’s also assume that he has pretty good carbohydrate tolerance, allowing him to increase that to 100 grams (400 kcal) per day. However the remainder of his daily energy intake (which now must match his expenditure) has to come from dietary fat – 1800 kcal or 200 grams per day.
“Wow”, you might be saying, “that’s way too much fat!” OK, we hear you – that sounds like a lot. But what are the alternatives? * • Eat less total energy? But then our big loser will keep losing, and eventually be plagued by hunger, cravings, and low energy. The definition of ‘maintenance’ is that your daily energy intake equals your daily expenditure. ** • Eat more carbohydrate? Even at 100 grams per day, our subject is ‘flirting’ with losing any benefits of the keto-adapted state. So adding more carbs while retaining the benefits of carbohydrate restriction is not an option. In fact, many people, particularly those who are more insulin resistant, need to eat even less carbs (e.g., 40 or 50 grams per day). * • And finally, how about more protein? Well, his 600 kcal of protein represented 38% of his energy intake during induction, but it was only 19% relative to his body’s 3200 kcal expenditure. Now in
maintenance when he’s burning 2800 kcal per day, this 150 grams of protein equals 21% of his energy intake/expenditure. One could eat more protein than this, but there’s no metabolic reason why this would be beneficial, and a variety of data indicate that too much protein causes malaise or worse. Even in the context of a weight maintenance very low carbohydrate diet, as the proportion of protein is increased above 30% of calories, there is a marked increase in blood urea nitrogen. Fat costs less and is more satiating, and we’ve demonstrated that even vigorous athletes on low carb do just fine when just 15% of their energy intake comes from protein.

Phinney, Stephen; Volek, Jeff (2011-07-08). The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living: An Expert Guide to Making the Life-Saving Benefits of Carbohydrate Restriction Sustainable and Enjoyable (p. 209). Beyond Obesity LLC. Kindle Edition.
So this shows that we figure out our protein needs based on GOAL weight, not current weight.
These guys' formulas say Reference (ideal) weight in kg times at least 1.0 to get grams of daily protein, so that's the minimum. Elsewhere they suggest 1.0 to 1.5 times body wt in kg, and I've seen them recommend 1.5 to 2 times but I think that's for athletes/heavy exercisers and other folks more tolerant of a little leeway. Many folks suggest starting at 1.5 and tweaking from there based on results.

I myself use 1.2 because I don't exercise much.

So goal weight divided by 2.2 to get kilograms, then multiply by at least 1, perhaps 1.2, 1.5 for lots of folks, and maybe up to 1.5 or 2.

Me:
125/2.2 x 1.2 =68.18

So I go with 65 to 80 but i'm still tweaking it (85 would be 1.5 for me). Great results recently with 1.2 as multiplyer. BUt as always, we're all different, so your multiplyer must be discovered by you.
emel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2013, 06:45 AM   #13
Way too much time on my hands!
 
emel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 17,635
Gallery: emel
Stats: 179.4/158.8/130ish
WOE: Atkins OWL/NK hybrid
And here, same source:

Another reason to avoid eating too much protein is that it has a modest insulin stimulating effect that reduces ketone production. While this effect is much less gram-for-gram than carbohydrates, higher protein intakes reduce one’s keto-adaptation and thus the metabolic benefits of the diet. As a result of these observations, plus our studies of muscle retention and function during carbohydrate restriction[27, 78, 87], we recommend daily protein intakes between 1.5 and 2.5 gram per day per kg of reference weight[5]. For a person on a weight maintaining low carbohydrate diet, this typically translates to somewhere between 15% and 25% of your daily energy intake coming from protein.

So this shows that I'm on the low side.
Maybe after my sleep disorder heals better I can look at boosting up protein, but that's a whole other set of number-crunching about the impact of poor sleep on muscle preservation, and I'm not boned up on it yet.

Last edited by emel; 07-14-2013 at 06:48 AM..
emel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2013, 07:50 AM   #14
GME
Big Yapper!!!!
 
GME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CA Coast
Posts: 9,878
Gallery: GME
Stats: 250/166/175 Trying again...223/206/146 5'7
WOE: JUDDD/Gluten & Dairy Free
Start Date: April 2000 (the first time)
I bought that book last minute on the way out the door on vacation for my Kindle. It was one I really should have gotten in "real book" form.
GME is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2013, 08:35 AM   #15
Major LCF Poster!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,685
Gallery: JKat
Start Date: December 2003
Thank you emel!! Very helpful.
JKat 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 11:18 PM.


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