Paleo/LC, nutritional knowledge andthe Dunning-Kruger effect

SanteMulberry

Thanks for this studied and reasoned post. Just from my own experience, I have found that ketogenic diets are problematic in the longer term (and I have found that they were the only vehicles for weight loss for me in the past). But the long-term battle appears to be won by the diet that reduces body fat most efficiently while preserving (or even facilitating the building of) muscle mass. One of the problems is that ketogenic diets tend to cause muscle atrophy long-term (that has been observed in several reports that I saw) and it was my own experience as well. Then, when I went back to my "normal" diet the pounds crept back on and the end result was that I gained nearly all of it as body fat because my lean body mass was probably reduced by the ketogenic diet. It has been known, for many years, that carbohydrates have a "muscle sparing" effect. In nearly eliminating them, that effect is lost. It has been my experience that if sugar and wheat is eliminated, that appetite is well controlled at 100-200 grams of carbohydrate per day (with the higher amounts reserved for heavy exercise days).

Both sugar and wheat have been observed to be "addictive" in the laboratory. Recent research has focused on the fructose component in sucrose as the likely culprit--for reasons that are too long to go into here. The relatively low amount of fructose that is in a few servings of fruit don't appear to be a problem, but sugar consumption brings a LOT of fructose into the diet.

As well, research has looked at several components in wheat that appear to be "obesogens." Modern wheat is very high in gluten (it has been specifically bred to have high gluten levels) and commercial "quick rise" baking methods leave most of the gluten intact. But while that has been the focus of much anti-wheat sentiment, it is not the gluten that appears to have "addictive" power (although the virtual epidemic of celiac disease and gluten intolerance could be laid there). It is the gliaden in wheat and also fructans (which the body readily converts to fructose in the gut) that could be producing problems for obese people. All of my food cravings stopped almost instantly the day that I eliminated sugar and wheat from my diet (and I eat everything else that fits into my macros). I now have no trouble staying within my calorie allotment and often find that I have to remind myself to eat, as I do not want to lose too quickly. Losing body mass too quickly may be the source of the cortisol rise that was observed---and no one needs to invite cardiac problems. My blood chemistry profile has improved dramatically and I was able to taper off my blood pressure medication very quickly after eliminating sugar.

I was so weak and tired on ketogenic diets that heavy exercise was out of the question for me (may be another source of the cortisol surge as studies have shown that cortisol levels are lowered through moderate exercise. Paradoxically, it has also been observed that "extreme" exercise tends to raise cortisol levels--probably because of the physical stress). I have no such problem exercising now--in fact, I am enjoying exercise for the first time in my life. I find that this program works better for me. But that is just anecdotal and until more work is done in the field, it is just one example. My body fat has gone from 50% to 32% and I feel great. I want to get my BF down to 25% eventually, but I am patient and expect that it will happen if I stay on this program. I will likely gradually increase my exercise levels. Actually, I will probably have to to get my BF to my goal. It has been a fascinating journey.

Thank you for the info! I am able to work out very well at the moment but I will definitely look into the effects of a ketogenic diet on muscle mass, especially since I intend to put some muscle on.

I also intend to avoid wheat and sugar indefinitely, but I will, once I reach maintenance or near maintenance, attempt to find other carbs that I can add back that don't trigger cravings. Unfortunately, one of my favorites, nuts, will not be in that group since I can happily eat an entire can of cashews at a sitting and then look for more.

One experiment that I did with myself was to test whether or not nuts were "addictive" for me. Many people claim that they are and I don't doubt that they could be. But what I found for myself, was that when I permitted myself to eat nuts every day (even though they are very high in calories and impinged on the consumption of other foods) that after a while, the thought of eating more nuts was likely to make me gag.

I have nothing to back it up, and it is just a conjecture, but I wonder if, once you get the appetite distortions of sugar and wheat out of the diet, that the normal response to food is regained. If you watch children eat (especially if they have had sugar and wheat left out of their diet) they instinctively eat what they need. Pediatricians have, for a long time, observed this about the elimination of sugar (and the elimination of the high fructose of fruit juice as well) in a child's diet. The child may eat all nuts one day, and then the next day, eat all cheese---but overall, without the appetite distortions produced by food addictions (and intolerance) that they will eat a nutritionally balanced diet overall.

SanteMulberry

But to keep on sounding the mantra that it does matter what your diet consists of as long as it stays within calories, is to do a health-disservice to those who are reading. Please stop it.

That is not what I said. Sounds like your reading comprehension could use some work in addition to the posting numbers you can't back up thing. Just can't see the forest for all those trees can you.

But hey, thanks for staying rational! :drinker:

Keep toasting yourself.:bigsmile:

cmriverside

Not sure if SRS, but if you are, get over it.

Just like - not everyone wants to drink protein shakes. Not everyone wants to eat meat.

You stepped over the line calling them "dumber". I'm not a low-carb preacher, but I don't think you have to have as many carbs as 55%, like this site prescribes by default.

Let. It. Go.

Acg67

Not sure if SRS, but if you are, get over it.

Just like - not everyone wants to drink protein shakes. Not everyone wants to eat meat.

You stepped over the line calling them "dumber". I'm not a low-carb preacher, but I don't think you have to have as many carbs as 55%, like this site prescribes by default.

Let. It. Go.

So you are discounting my anecdotal evidence, that some seem to hold above all other types of evidence?

cmriverside

Not sure if SRS, but if you are, get over it.

Just like - not everyone wants to drink protein shakes. Not everyone wants to eat meat.

You stepped over the line calling them "dumber". I'm not a low-carb preacher, but I don't think you have to have as many carbs as 55%, like this site prescribes by default.

Let. It. Go.

So you are discounting my anecdotal evidence, that some seem to hold above all other types of evidence?

Is that what you read above?

No, I'm disagreeing with your use of the word "dumber" being used as a club to further make your anti-low-carb argument. It could have been done with more civil language. Maybe MFP is getting to you and you should take a break.

Acg67

Not sure if SRS, but if you are, get over it.

Just like - not everyone wants to drink protein shakes. Not everyone wants to eat meat.

You stepped over the line calling them "dumber". I'm not a low-carb preacher, but I don't think you have to have as many carbs as 55%, like this site prescribes by default.

Let. It. Go.

So you are discounting my anecdotal evidence, that some seem to hold above all other types of evidence?

Is that what you read above?

No, I'm disagreeing with your use of the word "dumber" being used as a club to further make your anti-low-carb argument. It could have been done with more civil language. Maybe MFP is getting to you and you should take a break.

So if you were to peruse these forums or other LC forums what would you call some of the ridiculous statements that are made, misinformed, uneducated, factually challenged?

cmriverside

Not sure if SRS, but if you are, get over it.

Just like - not everyone wants to drink protein shakes. Not everyone wants to eat meat.

You stepped over the line calling them "dumber". I'm not a low-carb preacher, but I don't think you have to have as many carbs as 55%, like this site prescribes by default.

Let. It. Go.

So you are discounting my anecdotal evidence, that some seem to hold above all other types of evidence?

Is that what you read above?

No, I'm disagreeing with your use of the word "dumber" being used as a club to further make your anti-low-carb argument. It could have been done with more civil language. Maybe MFP is getting to you and you should take a break.

So if you were to peruse these forums or other LC forums what would you call some of the ridiculous statements that are made, misinformed, uneducated, factually challenged?

There are lots of ill-informed people, both LC and otherwise.

I am saying that the tone of your initial post is mean-spirited. You didn't have to start a thread with this:

Is it possible that the paleo diet and low carb diets make you dumber on the subject of nutrition, yet at the same time makes you think you know a lot about the subject? Using low carb and paleo dieters favorite sort of evidence, that would be anecdotal, that seems to be the case.

Could this also explain why you also see so many cases of special snowflake syndrome in these dieters, sheer ignorance of basic nutritional facts, despite fancying themselves as quite knowledgeable on the subject?

Or maybe they suffer from a form of true believer syndrome

Maybe you hoped all your true-believers would jump on board with you. But all the post does is use inflammatory language for what? Were you hoping to rile everyone up? "Sheer ignorance"? I just think you took it way too far: you already make this point over and over in your regular forum posts.

Just too bad you couldn't have taken the high road and not added to the negative stuff already here. This thread is a blatant attack - merely because some people are ill-informed. Use your knowledge in a postitive way. I don't think this thread was used to be helpful, it was used to dogpile.

Usually when regular long-time users get to this point and start attacking, it's out of frustration.