"Scientists confirms Paleo diet is nonsense" anyone else see this article?
Options
Replies
-
Paleo has been disproven as having any historical accuracy a long time ago.0
-
I follow with interest the various diets among my real and virtual friends.Some of them are very committed to what they do. Some are even successful. In the end, my plan of eating primarily home-cooked meals made from a wide variety of nutritious ingredients has worked out fine. I even include some processed food because live in the 21st century and must reasonable in balancing my work, family and other commitments with the time it would take to make everything from scratch. If I can hit my nutritional targets without taking dubious supplements and I have a general sense of physical well-being and can maintain my target weight, and feel satisfied, it's the perfect plan for me. So today I had; baked apple with cinnamon, nutmeg, splash of lemon juice and Splenda mixed in. Two slices of bacon, a banana, coconut curry chicken with 1/2 cup of Thai jasmine rice, steamed broccoli, 300 grams of strawberries with flaked coconut mixed in. Then 3 ounces of home cooked pot roast on a whole grain sandwich thin. A York Peppermint Patty mini right before bed and I'm perfectly happy.0
-
The diet itself I have no problems with. If someone decides they don't want to eat grain it's none of my business and it does not pause any risk to my grain-based favorite dishes. What I'm against is click-baiting (the article is misleading) and the Paleo cultism.0
-
Domicinator wrote: »I have noticed some very interesting things since starting to lose lots of weight using "calorie counting" in MFP (other than the fact that it has gotten me MAJOR results--47 lbs lost so far!!). And I know what I'm about to say is going to get some backlash, but I don't really care that much.
1) The people I know that are on fad diets (low carb, paleo, wheat belly, etc), for the most part, are still overweight, haven't made much progress at all if they've made any to begin with, and are mostly just miserable because they're depriving themselves of foods that are perfectly fine. Somebody on the news told them that gluten, carbs, fat, and sugar are all horrible for you, and they believe it. Many of them even think they're "allergic" to these foods. In my 38 years on this planet, I have never seen so many people "allergic" to so many foods. I find it 100% ridiculous. We are turning into a society of hypochondriacs who are absolutely insufferable at restaurants. What's more, these fad diets and made up ailments do NOTHING to help people lose weight because they still pig out and don't even do any kind of exercise to counteract it.
2) The people I know who have had success getting down to a healthy weight did it through calorie counting and exercising, and the people I know who have maintained the weight loss have done it by continuing to log their food and exercise.
3) The people I know who are already at a healthy weight and always have been, such as all the runners in my family, ALSO tend to count calories, log, and weigh and measure their foods when cooking at home. They also tend to not eat out nearly as much as most people I know.
The reason I have observed these things is that when people see that I've lost a lot of weight, they want to talk about it with me. I have learned a lot about the health of my friends and family that I didn't know before. The people that are already fit and healthy work at it JUST AS HARD as I am. They just made it seem effortless before becuase I was not someone they would have ever talked to about fitness.
So the people you know who are good about consistency and discipline with diet and exercise are successful, but the people who are not tend to fail? That's not the fault of the eating style, that's people choosing an approach that doesn't fit with the reality of their lives. That does make low carb or paleo a fad, people who are able to consistent and disciplined in following those ways of eating are able to do it long term as well. Success is determined by the individual finding what is right for them and sticking with it, not any one diet.
Consistency
The cool thing about being a long term gym member is seeing all the people that come and go compared to the small percentage that stay.
I have stuck for 2 years, and 130 lbs gone.
But consistency with lower carb and controlled calories, and what some call a sometimes crazy a mount of exercise has worked.
We never argue about diet types at the gym or bike riding group.
And those can seem to be two totally different groups of people, muscle builders and slim bike riders. But both require consistent effort in diet and training to excel at. Now enter the triathlon club, which I am joining. Even wider group of people, but all dedicated and fit. A variety of nutrition plans again.
What would be ironic is to have a list of the Atlanta Triathlon Club member diets posted and then people in a forum tell them they can't work or how they are faulty.
It is that dedication that unlocks the entry way to success.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »christineja wrote: »Paleo is just Nourishing Traditions without the raw dairy. Nourishing Traditions is just Atkins with an "eat like the native peoples" spin, SoBeach is a more glamorous Atkins with more fish. There's nothing new here, whole foods/clean eating/blah blah they're all essentially just a low carb high fat diet.
I wouldn't call SoBeach low carb, or high fat, but yes, it's kind of a spin off on the mediterranean diet.
Isn't the intro period for SoBeach low carb?
I agree that after that it isn't, and paleo need not be either.
The optional first 2 weeks? Yes, probably, if one counted carbs, which you're asked not to, then yeah, the amount probably qualifies as "low carb" (though his "good carbs" aren't limited even then.) The diet itself, which the author says starts after the optional two weeks isn't.
And it's certainly not high fat.0 -
Hilarious! This isn't science. This is supposition to "confirm" a preconceived conclusion.
Point #1 is laughable (1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;
I guess all the Inuit eskimos and the countless people eating a ketogenic diet have brains that are not working! Imagine that. More ridiculous is these "scientists" appear to have skipped biochemistry class. I guess they never learned that more than sufficient glucose can be created through the gluconeogenesis pathway from the backbone of fats and from aminoacids from protein. Efficiency isn't the issue, it's availability.
Biologically, there is no essential need for carbohydrate. The same is not true for fatty acids or of course protein. DId prehistoric mane eat a "paleo" diet? I have no idea, but neither do the authors of this article.
^ this statement is also laughable. Hi Strawman!
In the bolded statement, where did you get the notion the brain would not work on keto diet?
Is gluconeogenesis the most efficient way of getting glucose? And certainly efficiency does matter, I wonder if there's ever been research done on cognitive skills and let's say administering a bolus of glucose and seeing how they perform vs a control?
Biologically there is no essential need for carbohydrate? Well that certainly is hilarious and made up. Science? Not even once0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »The headline is a tad misleading, but thanks for posting.
Is the history/science behind eating a lower carb "paleo" diet wrong? Probably.
Is the science behind eating a lower carb, quality plant, quality fat, quality protein based diet wrong? I'd bet not.
There's no evidence that carb level matters much at all. (Nor is paleo necessarily a low carb diet, to its credit.)If eating "paleo" got one of my family members to focus on eating whole foods, rather than all the heavily refined carbs? I'd say why not. They'd learn something about eating real food, and probably end up with a different approach to eating for the long haul (whole food based) after their "paleo" days ended.
Sure, but I never understand why one must cut out whole foods like legumes or non-highly-processed foods like many whole grains or dairy to simply do something much more commonsensical -- eat a healthy, whole-foods based diet? Why not skip the false rationale and go right to focusing on the helpful stuff?
I do like the focus on sourcing meat and eating the whole animal, but seems to me a lot of newly paleo sorts ignore that and focus instead on the no grains (they usually aren't really eating lots of legumes anyway), and take advantage of the convenience products that are currently being made for the paleo market, as well as the "paleo treats" that replicate high cal low nutrient items but with alternative ingredients like almond flour. Kind of misses the point.
Paleo was designed as a diet for people with food allergies or food-related inflammations.
I've read a good bit about the paleo diet and don't believe this is true. Some use it that way (there's an auto immune version which is different from the normal one), but if that were my issue I'd definitely follow the advice of a doctor vs. just cutting out foods that were (allegedly) not eaten by paleo era humans.
I cannot tell to whom exactly kgeyser is referring to (maybe to dr Freed, who has coauthored this diet: http://www.salfordallergyclinic.com/pdf/stoneagediet.pdf ).
What is sure is that immunologists have been studying the effects of lectines for decades already. It is a branch of research that has been developed independently from the paleo movement.
Okay, I don't disagree with that.
I would not agree that that presents a reason to avoid legumes.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »christineja wrote: »Paleo is just Nourishing Traditions without the raw dairy. Nourishing Traditions is just Atkins with an "eat like the native peoples" spin, SoBeach is a more glamorous Atkins with more fish. There's nothing new here, whole foods/clean eating/blah blah they're all essentially just a low carb high fat diet.
I wouldn't call SoBeach low carb, or high fat, but yes, it's kind of a spin off on the mediterranean diet.
Isn't the intro period for SoBeach low carb?
I agree that after that it isn't, and paleo need not be either.
The optional first 2 weeks? Yes, probably, if one counted carbs, which you're asked not to, then yeah, the amount probably qualifies as "low carb" (though his "good carbs" aren't limited even then.) The diet itself, which the author says starts after the optional two weeks isn't.
And it's certainly not high fat.
Yeah, I just remembered something about cutting fruits. I wasn't sure how the intro period worked for whole grains, but my vague memory was that the whole thing looked likely low carb to me.
Otherwise, no disagreement.0 -
Domicinator wrote: »Domicinator wrote: »Domicinator wrote: »I have noticed some very interesting things since starting to lose lots of weight using "calorie counting" in MFP (other than the fact that it has gotten me MAJOR results--47 lbs lost so far!!). And I know what I'm about to say is going to get some backlash, but I don't really care that much.
1) The people I know that are on fad diets (low carb, paleo, wheat belly, etc), for the most part, are still overweight, haven't made much progress at all if they've made any to begin with, and are mostly just miserable because they're depriving themselves of foods that are perfectly fine. Somebody on the news told them that gluten, carbs, fat, and sugar are all horrible for you, and they believe it. Many of them even think they're "allergic" to these foods. In my 38 years on this planet, I have never seen so many people "allergic" to so many foods. I find it 100% ridiculous. We are turning into a society of hypochondriacs who are absolutely insufferable at restaurants. What's more, these fad diets and made up ailments do NOTHING to help people lose weight because they still pig out and don't even do any kind of exercise to counteract it.
2) The people I know who have had success getting down to a healthy weight did it through calorie counting and exercising, and the people I know who have maintained the weight loss have done it by continuing to log their food and exercise.
3) The people I know who are already at a healthy weight and always have been, such as all the runners in my family, ALSO tend to count calories, log, and weigh and measure their foods when cooking at home. They also tend to not eat out nearly as much as most people I know.
The reason I have observed these things is that when people see that I've lost a lot of weight, they want to talk about it with me. I have learned a lot about the health of my friends and family that I didn't know before. The people that are already fit and healthy work at it JUST AS HARD as I am. They just made it seem effortless before becuase I was not someone they would have ever talked to about fitness.
I lost my weight following a low carb diet and am now happily in maintenance. I also count calories since no way of eating replaces CICO. So do I help or hurt your observational analysis of your brief time on MFP?
No matter what diet people follow, if they consistently maintain a caloric deficit they will lose weight. That is what my observation has told me.
I think what you're saying actually supports my observations. I have no problem with a "low carb diet". What I have a problem with is people saying "If I eat no carbs I will lose a zillion pounds and then I can just go back to eating them again when I'm at my target!"
I avoid unnecessary carbs myself, only because the foods they're in are usually high in calories for very little substance. For example, I love pasta, but I avoid it because I can eat more food if I DON'T eat pasta. But if you do low carb or no carb with the illusion that it's the magic key to getting healthy, I think you're in for failure.
That's because so many people want a quick fix. They don't realize that there is no quick fix for weight loss, it involves retraining your brain and body to better eating habits. That's the whole point of MFP, or rather, what it SHOULD be. I don't have the healthiest diet out there, but I've still lost weight. I'm ended up subbing in some more nutritious foods for empty calories just so I can eat more, but I've never gone low-carb, no sugar, no processed foods, whole foods, etc. If that works for someone, that's fine, but it still isn't a quick fix. That's what's hard to get some people to understand.
What frustrates me is the people that will post asking about a fad diet, get honest responses about how it's probably not going to be sustainable and then get mad about it. If you want to do a fad diet, just do it! You do your thing if it works for you and is healthy (in that your doctor won't freak when he/she finds out about it), and we'll each do ours. There is no one diet that everyone should follow.
It happens over and over and over again here. People asking about fad diets, supplements, pills of all kinds, etc. They always get the same answer, and then get defensive about it.
What is your definition of a fad diet??? You listed a lot of diets in your first post that I wouldn't consider a fad diet. There are a lot of different types of diets that can assist one in getting and maintaining a caloric deficit. Some like a structured approach while others prefer a diet with more freedom.
For me, it isn't about a fad diet or people wanting a quick fix. Where I find people setting themselves up for being less successful is people following a certain diet, but not knowing much about it....and not knowing why they are following it. I know a lot about the diet I chose and why it worked for me...however I do see a lot of people following a way of eating just "because" and that is often problematic for me.
Paleo. Low carb. South Beach. Intermittent Fasting. I could go on and on. They all work...if the diet helps you maintain a deficit. There is nothing magic about it, but it doesn't make them a fad either.
It's probably not fair, but I associate fad diets with the throngs of people who jump on board with a diet because "it works" without even considering if it's reasonable for their lifestyle, their goals, or their eating habits. Diets can be really good, but people pile on for no reason. And maybe that's not fair, especially since that lumps them in with HCG, the baby food diet, the cabbage soup diet, etc, which are all completely unhealthy.
Can I just sum it up with I hate stupid people? Think about what you do before you do it, including the consequences and think through if it will actually work for you.0 -
Domicinator wrote: »Domicinator wrote: »Domicinator wrote: »I have noticed some very interesting things since starting to lose lots of weight using "calorie counting" in MFP (other than the fact that it has gotten me MAJOR results--47 lbs lost so far!!). And I know what I'm about to say is going to get some backlash, but I don't really care that much.
1) The people I know that are on fad diets (low carb, paleo, wheat belly, etc), for the most part, are still overweight, haven't made much progress at all if they've made any to begin with, and are mostly just miserable because they're depriving themselves of foods that are perfectly fine. Somebody on the news told them that gluten, carbs, fat, and sugar are all horrible for you, and they believe it. Many of them even think they're "allergic" to these foods. In my 38 years on this planet, I have never seen so many people "allergic" to so many foods. I find it 100% ridiculous. We are turning into a society of hypochondriacs who are absolutely insufferable at restaurants. What's more, these fad diets and made up ailments do NOTHING to help people lose weight because they still pig out and don't even do any kind of exercise to counteract it.
2) The people I know who have had success getting down to a healthy weight did it through calorie counting and exercising, and the people I know who have maintained the weight loss have done it by continuing to log their food and exercise.
3) The people I know who are already at a healthy weight and always have been, such as all the runners in my family, ALSO tend to count calories, log, and weigh and measure their foods when cooking at home. They also tend to not eat out nearly as much as most people I know.
The reason I have observed these things is that when people see that I've lost a lot of weight, they want to talk about it with me. I have learned a lot about the health of my friends and family that I didn't know before. The people that are already fit and healthy work at it JUST AS HARD as I am. They just made it seem effortless before becuase I was not someone they would have ever talked to about fitness.
I lost my weight following a low carb diet and am now happily in maintenance. I also count calories since no way of eating replaces CICO. So do I help or hurt your observational analysis of your brief time on MFP?
No matter what diet people follow, if they consistently maintain a caloric deficit they will lose weight. That is what my observation has told me.
I think what you're saying actually supports my observations. I have no problem with a "low carb diet". What I have a problem with is people saying "If I eat no carbs I will lose a zillion pounds and then I can just go back to eating them again when I'm at my target!"
I avoid unnecessary carbs myself, only because the foods they're in are usually high in calories for very little substance. For example, I love pasta, but I avoid it because I can eat more food if I DON'T eat pasta. But if you do low carb or no carb with the illusion that it's the magic key to getting healthy, I think you're in for failure.
That's because so many people want a quick fix. They don't realize that there is no quick fix for weight loss, it involves retraining your brain and body to better eating habits. That's the whole point of MFP, or rather, what it SHOULD be. I don't have the healthiest diet out there, but I've still lost weight. I'm ended up subbing in some more nutritious foods for empty calories just so I can eat more, but I've never gone low-carb, no sugar, no processed foods, whole foods, etc. If that works for someone, that's fine, but it still isn't a quick fix. That's what's hard to get some people to understand.
What frustrates me is the people that will post asking about a fad diet, get honest responses about how it's probably not going to be sustainable and then get mad about it. If you want to do a fad diet, just do it! You do your thing if it works for you and is healthy (in that your doctor won't freak when he/she finds out about it), and we'll each do ours. There is no one diet that everyone should follow.
It happens over and over and over again here. People asking about fad diets, supplements, pills of all kinds, etc. They always get the same answer, and then get defensive about it.
What is your definition of a fad diet??? You listed a lot of diets in your first post that I wouldn't consider a fad diet. There are a lot of different types of diets that can assist one in getting and maintaining a caloric deficit. Some like a structured approach while others prefer a diet with more freedom.
For me, it isn't about a fad diet or people wanting a quick fix. Where I find people setting themselves up for being less successful is people following a certain diet, but not knowing much about it....and not knowing why they are following it. I know a lot about the diet I chose and why it worked for me...however I do see a lot of people following a way of eating just "because" and that is often problematic for me.
Paleo. Low carb. South Beach. Intermittent Fasting. I could go on and on. They all work...if the diet helps you maintain a deficit. There is nothing magic about it, but it doesn't make them a fad either.
It's probably not fair, but I associate fad diets with the throngs of people who jump on board with a diet because "it works" without even considering if it's reasonable for their lifestyle, their goals, or their eating habits. Diets can be really good, but people pile on for no reason. And maybe that's not fair, especially since that lumps them in with HCG, the baby food diet, the cabbage soup diet, etc, which are all completely unhealthy.
Can I just sum it up with I hate stupid people? Think about what you do before you do it, including the consequences and think through if it will actually work for you.
This is my thinking - essentially dismissing anything with a title "The ________ Diet" or anything requiring a purchase. All these plans, unless medically necessary are unsustainable in the long term as they go against our nature. We are born to eat, but as we enter into a less physically active lifestyle, we simply need to eat less.
0 -
Domicinator wrote: »Domicinator wrote: »Domicinator wrote: »I have noticed some very interesting things since starting to lose lots of weight using "calorie counting" in MFP (other than the fact that it has gotten me MAJOR results--47 lbs lost so far!!). And I know what I'm about to say is going to get some backlash, but I don't really care that much.
1) The people I know that are on fad diets (low carb, paleo, wheat belly, etc), for the most part, are still overweight, haven't made much progress at all if they've made any to begin with, and are mostly just miserable because they're depriving themselves of foods that are perfectly fine. Somebody on the news told them that gluten, carbs, fat, and sugar are all horrible for you, and they believe it. Many of them even think they're "allergic" to these foods. In my 38 years on this planet, I have never seen so many people "allergic" to so many foods. I find it 100% ridiculous. We are turning into a society of hypochondriacs who are absolutely insufferable at restaurants. What's more, these fad diets and made up ailments do NOTHING to help people lose weight because they still pig out and don't even do any kind of exercise to counteract it.
2) The people I know who have had success getting down to a healthy weight did it through calorie counting and exercising, and the people I know who have maintained the weight loss have done it by continuing to log their food and exercise.
3) The people I know who are already at a healthy weight and always have been, such as all the runners in my family, ALSO tend to count calories, log, and weigh and measure their foods when cooking at home. They also tend to not eat out nearly as much as most people I know.
The reason I have observed these things is that when people see that I've lost a lot of weight, they want to talk about it with me. I have learned a lot about the health of my friends and family that I didn't know before. The people that are already fit and healthy work at it JUST AS HARD as I am. They just made it seem effortless before becuase I was not someone they would have ever talked to about fitness.
I lost my weight following a low carb diet and am now happily in maintenance. I also count calories since no way of eating replaces CICO. So do I help or hurt your observational analysis of your brief time on MFP?
No matter what diet people follow, if they consistently maintain a caloric deficit they will lose weight. That is what my observation has told me.
I think what you're saying actually supports my observations. I have no problem with a "low carb diet". What I have a problem with is people saying "If I eat no carbs I will lose a zillion pounds and then I can just go back to eating them again when I'm at my target!"
I avoid unnecessary carbs myself, only because the foods they're in are usually high in calories for very little substance. For example, I love pasta, but I avoid it because I can eat more food if I DON'T eat pasta. But if you do low carb or no carb with the illusion that it's the magic key to getting healthy, I think you're in for failure.
That's because so many people want a quick fix. They don't realize that there is no quick fix for weight loss, it involves retraining your brain and body to better eating habits. That's the whole point of MFP, or rather, what it SHOULD be. I don't have the healthiest diet out there, but I've still lost weight. I'm ended up subbing in some more nutritious foods for empty calories just so I can eat more, but I've never gone low-carb, no sugar, no processed foods, whole foods, etc. If that works for someone, that's fine, but it still isn't a quick fix. That's what's hard to get some people to understand.
What frustrates me is the people that will post asking about a fad diet, get honest responses about how it's probably not going to be sustainable and then get mad about it. If you want to do a fad diet, just do it! You do your thing if it works for you and is healthy (in that your doctor won't freak when he/she finds out about it), and we'll each do ours. There is no one diet that everyone should follow.
It happens over and over and over again here. People asking about fad diets, supplements, pills of all kinds, etc. They always get the same answer, and then get defensive about it.
What is your definition of a fad diet??? You listed a lot of diets in your first post that I wouldn't consider a fad diet. There are a lot of different types of diets that can assist one in getting and maintaining a caloric deficit. Some like a structured approach while others prefer a diet with more freedom.
For me, it isn't about a fad diet or people wanting a quick fix. Where I find people setting themselves up for being less successful is people following a certain diet, but not knowing much about it....and not knowing why they are following it. I know a lot about the diet I chose and why it worked for me...however I do see a lot of people following a way of eating just "because" and that is often problematic for me.
Paleo. Low carb. South Beach. Intermittent Fasting. I could go on and on. They all work...if the diet helps you maintain a deficit. There is nothing magic about it, but it doesn't make them a fad either.
It's probably not fair, but I associate fad diets with the throngs of people who jump on board with a diet because "it works" without even considering if it's reasonable for their lifestyle, their goals, or their eating habits. Diets can be really good, but people pile on for no reason. And maybe that's not fair, especially since that lumps them in with HCG, the baby food diet, the cabbage soup diet, etc, which are all completely unhealthy.
Can I just sum it up with I hate stupid people? Think about what you do before you do it, including the consequences and think through if it will actually work for you.
I can't disagree with that. There is a thread out there of someone asking for tips getting through the keto flu. Someone later asked why someone would do low carb or keto...the OP came back and said she didn't know and hoped someone else would answer. I was face palming all over the place. You are doing a diet and have no idea why or what the diet actually is? Good luck with that.
Life is filled with people that just do what the crowd is doing. It's like getting in line behind someone simply because there is a line. Must be something good or why would so many people be in line.
I am always amazed at some of these threads...such as...
What should I eat for breakfast?
Why am I not losing weight?
How often should I weigh?
etc
etc
I don't know...maybe I am just someone that would rather research and make my own decisions...right or wrong.
0 -
Hilarious! This isn't science. This is supposition to "confirm" a preconceived conclusion.
Point #1 is laughable (1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;
I guess all the Inuit eskimos and the countless people eating a ketogenic diet have brains that are not working! Imagine that. More ridiculous is these "scientists" appear to have skipped biochemistry class. I guess they never learned that more than sufficient glucose can be created through the gluconeogenesis pathway from the backbone of fats and from aminoacids from protein. Efficiency isn't the issue, it's availability.
Biologically, there is no essential need for carbohydrate. The same is not true for fatty acids or of course protein. DId prehistoric mane eat a "paleo" diet? I have no idea, but neither do the authors of this article.
^ this statement is also laughable. Hi Strawman!
In the bolded statement, where did you get the notion the brain would not work on keto diet?
I guess I got it because I can read and parse a sentence! " The human brain... uses up 60% of blood glucose...These high demands are unlikely to be met on low carbohydrate diet" The author clearly is saying that brain demands are not likely to be met on low carbohydrate diet. Poppycock! This has been known to be false for more than 100 years!
Is gluconeogenesis the most efficient way of getting glucose? And certainly efficiency does matter, I wonder if there's ever been research done on cognitive skills and let's say administering a bolus of glucose and seeing how they perform vs a control?
Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency-.(Shaffer PA. Antiketogenesis. II. The ketogenic antiketogenic balance in man. J Biol Chem 1921;47:463–73)Healthy people control their blood glucose quite tightly. The marathon runner has depleted his glycogen stores and is using lipolysis for his energy substrate. Despite this, his blood glucose level will be normal. And to be totally correct, high level of blood glucose exert a negative effect on cognition. (as does too low a blood glucose level).
Biologically there is no essential need for carbohydrate? Well that certainly is hilarious and made up. Science? Not even once
Harper AE. Defining the essentiality of nutrients. In: Shils MD, Olson JA, Shihe M, Ross AC, eds. Modern nutrition in health and disease. 9th ed. Boston: William and Wilkins, 1999:3–10. This is not even open for debate. Countless clinical and animal studies demonstrate that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient.
I believe that individuals should follow the eating and exercise habits that work best for them. I also believe that misinformation is not helpful to anyone.0 -
Hilarious! This isn't science. This is supposition to "confirm" a preconceived conclusion.
Point #1 is laughable (1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;
I guess all the Inuit eskimos and the countless people eating a ketogenic diet have brains that are not working! Imagine that. More ridiculous is these "scientists" appear to have skipped biochemistry class. I guess they never learned that more than sufficient glucose can be created through the gluconeogenesis pathway from the backbone of fats and from aminoacids from protein. Efficiency isn't the issue, it's availability.
Biologically, there is no essential need for carbohydrate. The same is not true for fatty acids or of course protein. DId prehistoric mane eat a "paleo" diet? I have no idea, but neither do the authors of this article.
^ this statement is also laughable. Hi Strawman!
In the bolded statement, where did you get the notion the brain would not work on keto diet?
I guess I got it because I can read and parse a sentence! " The human brain... uses up 60% of blood glucose...These high demands are unlikely to be met on low carbohydrate diet" The author clearly is saying that brain demands are not likely to be met on low carbohydrate diet. Poppycock! This has been known to be false for more than 100 years!
Is gluconeogenesis the most efficient way of getting glucose? And certainly efficiency does matter, I wonder if there's ever been research done on cognitive skills and let's say administering a bolus of glucose and seeing how they perform vs a control?
Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency-.(Shaffer PA. Antiketogenesis. II. The ketogenic antiketogenic balance in man. J Biol Chem 1921;47:463–73)Healthy people control their blood glucose quite tightly. The marathon runner has depleted his glycogen stores and is using lipolysis for his energy substrate. Despite this, his blood glucose level will be normal. And to be totally correct, high level of blood glucose exert a negative effect on cognition. (as does too low a blood glucose level).
Biologically there is no essential need for carbohydrate? Well that certainly is hilarious and made up. Science? Not even once
Harper AE. Defining the essentiality of nutrients. In: Shils MD, Olson JA, Shihe M, Ross AC, eds. Modern nutrition in health and disease. 9th ed. Boston: William and Wilkins, 1999:3–10. This is not even open for debate. Countless clinical and animal studies demonstrate that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient.
I believe that individuals should follow the eating and exercise habits that work best for them. I also believe that misinformation is not helpful to anyone.
They're not essential in the nutritional sense, which is "whatever your body can't create on its own". For you to live though, carbs are very much essential, you just don't have to eat them because of neoglucogenesis, which is a good thing because else you'd drop dead after 2-3 days of not eating carbs.0 -
Domicinator wrote: »Domicinator wrote: »Domicinator wrote: »I have noticed some very interesting things since starting to lose lots of weight using "calorie counting" in MFP (other than the fact that it has gotten me MAJOR results--47 lbs lost so far!!). And I know what I'm about to say is going to get some backlash, but I don't really care that much.
1) The people I know that are on fad diets (low carb, paleo, wheat belly, etc), for the most part, are still overweight, haven't made much progress at all if they've made any to begin with, and are mostly just miserable because they're depriving themselves of foods that are perfectly fine. Somebody on the news told them that gluten, carbs, fat, and sugar are all horrible for you, and they believe it. Many of them even think they're "allergic" to these foods. In my 38 years on this planet, I have never seen so many people "allergic" to so many foods. I find it 100% ridiculous. We are turning into a society of hypochondriacs who are absolutely insufferable at restaurants. What's more, these fad diets and made up ailments do NOTHING to help people lose weight because they still pig out and don't even do any kind of exercise to counteract it.
2) The people I know who have had success getting down to a healthy weight did it through calorie counting and exercising, and the people I know who have maintained the weight loss have done it by continuing to log their food and exercise.
3) The people I know who are already at a healthy weight and always have been, such as all the runners in my family, ALSO tend to count calories, log, and weigh and measure their foods when cooking at home. They also tend to not eat out nearly as much as most people I know.
The reason I have observed these things is that when people see that I've lost a lot of weight, they want to talk about it with me. I have learned a lot about the health of my friends and family that I didn't know before. The people that are already fit and healthy work at it JUST AS HARD as I am. They just made it seem effortless before becuase I was not someone they would have ever talked to about fitness.
I lost my weight following a low carb diet and am now happily in maintenance. I also count calories since no way of eating replaces CICO. So do I help or hurt your observational analysis of your brief time on MFP?
No matter what diet people follow, if they consistently maintain a caloric deficit they will lose weight. That is what my observation has told me.
I think what you're saying actually supports my observations. I have no problem with a "low carb diet". What I have a problem with is people saying "If I eat no carbs I will lose a zillion pounds and then I can just go back to eating them again when I'm at my target!"
I avoid unnecessary carbs myself, only because the foods they're in are usually high in calories for very little substance. For example, I love pasta, but I avoid it because I can eat more food if I DON'T eat pasta. But if you do low carb or no carb with the illusion that it's the magic key to getting healthy, I think you're in for failure.
That's because so many people want a quick fix. They don't realize that there is no quick fix for weight loss, it involves retraining your brain and body to better eating habits. That's the whole point of MFP, or rather, what it SHOULD be. I don't have the healthiest diet out there, but I've still lost weight. I'm ended up subbing in some more nutritious foods for empty calories just so I can eat more, but I've never gone low-carb, no sugar, no processed foods, whole foods, etc. If that works for someone, that's fine, but it still isn't a quick fix. That's what's hard to get some people to understand.
What frustrates me is the people that will post asking about a fad diet, get honest responses about how it's probably not going to be sustainable and then get mad about it. If you want to do a fad diet, just do it! You do your thing if it works for you and is healthy (in that your doctor won't freak when he/she finds out about it), and we'll each do ours. There is no one diet that everyone should follow.
It happens over and over and over again here. People asking about fad diets, supplements, pills of all kinds, etc. They always get the same answer, and then get defensive about it.
What is your definition of a fad diet??? You listed a lot of diets in your first post that I wouldn't consider a fad diet. There are a lot of different types of diets that can assist one in getting and maintaining a caloric deficit. Some like a structured approach while others prefer a diet with more freedom.
For me, it isn't about a fad diet or people wanting a quick fix. Where I find people setting themselves up for being less successful is people following a certain diet, but not knowing much about it....and not knowing why they are following it. I know a lot about the diet I chose and why it worked for me...however I do see a lot of people following a way of eating just "because" and that is often problematic for me.
Paleo. Low carb. South Beach. Intermittent Fasting. I could go on and on. They all work...if the diet helps you maintain a deficit. There is nothing magic about it, but it doesn't make them a fad either.
It's probably not fair, but I associate fad diets with the throngs of people who jump on board with a diet because "it works" without even considering if it's reasonable for their lifestyle, their goals, or their eating habits. Diets can be really good, but people pile on for no reason. And maybe that's not fair, especially since that lumps them in with HCG, the baby food diet, the cabbage soup diet, etc, which are all completely unhealthy.
Can I just sum it up with I hate stupid people? Think about what you do before you do it, including the consequences and think through if it will actually work for you.
I can't disagree with that. There is a thread out there of someone asking for tips getting through the keto flu. Someone later asked why someone would do low carb or keto...the OP came back and said she didn't know and hoped someone else would answer. I was face palming all over the place. You are doing a diet and have no idea why or what the diet actually is? Good luck with that.
Life is filled with people that just do what the crowd is doing. It's like getting in line behind someone simply because there is a line. Must be something good or why would so many people be in line.
I am always amazed at some of these threads...such as...
What should I eat for breakfast?
Why am I not losing weight?
How often should I weigh?
etc
etc
I don't know...maybe I am just someone that would rather research and make my own decisions...right or wrong.
I don't really know how to respond when I run across these. Of course, I run into the same issue. Seriously, how have you gotten this far in life without learning to not overstuff the dryer.0 -
Hilarious! This isn't science. This is supposition to "confirm" a preconceived conclusion.
Point #1 is laughable (1) The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;
I guess all the Inuit eskimos and the countless people eating a ketogenic diet have brains that are not working! Imagine that. More ridiculous is these "scientists" appear to have skipped biochemistry class. I guess they never learned that more than sufficient glucose can be created through the gluconeogenesis pathway from the backbone of fats and from aminoacids from protein. Efficiency isn't the issue, it's availability.
Biologically, there is no essential need for carbohydrate. The same is not true for fatty acids or of course protein. DId prehistoric mane eat a "paleo" diet? I have no idea, but neither do the authors of this article.
^ this statement is also laughable. Hi Strawman!
In the bolded statement, where did you get the notion the brain would not work on keto diet?
I guess I got it because I can read and parse a sentence! " The human brain... uses up 60% of blood glucose...These high demands are unlikely to be met on low carbohydrate diet" The author clearly is saying that brain demands are not likely to be met on low carbohydrate diet. Poppycock! This has been known to be false for more than 100 years!
Is gluconeogenesis the most efficient way of getting glucose? And certainly efficiency does matter, I wonder if there's ever been research done on cognitive skills and let's say administering a bolus of glucose and seeing how they perform vs a control?
Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency-.(Shaffer PA. Antiketogenesis. II. The ketogenic antiketogenic balance in man. J Biol Chem 1921;47:463–73)Healthy people control their blood glucose quite tightly. The marathon runner has depleted his glycogen stores and is using lipolysis for his energy substrate. Despite this, his blood glucose level will be normal. And to be totally correct, high level of blood glucose exert a negative effect on cognition. (as does too low a blood glucose level).
Biologically there is no essential need for carbohydrate? Well that certainly is hilarious and made up. Science? Not even once
Harper AE. Defining the essentiality of nutrients. In: Shils MD, Olson JA, Shihe M, Ross AC, eds. Modern nutrition in health and disease. 9th ed. Boston: William and Wilkins, 1999:3–10. This is not even open for debate. Countless clinical and animal studies demonstrate that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient.
I believe that individuals should follow the eating and exercise habits that work best for them. I also believe that misinformation is not helpful to anyone.
"I guess I got it because I can read and parse a sentence!"
Lol. So unlikely = "not working" Strawman is a strawman
"Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency-.(Shaffer PA. Antiketogenesis. II. The ketogenic antiketogenic balance in man. J Biol Chem 1921;47:463–73)Healthy people control their blood glucose quite tightly. The marathon runner has depleted his glycogen stores and is using lipolysis for his energy substrate. Despite this, his blood glucose level will be normal. And to be totally correct, high level of blood glucose exert a negative effect on cognition. (as does too low a blood glucose level)."
Strong comprehension, ""Gluconeogenesis and subsequent ketogenesis is hormonally regulated and homeostatically controlled by the availability of glucose from glycogen or from foodstuffs. Only availability of glucose is important in the control of this biochemical process - not efficiency" From your statement, efficiency is not important for gluconeogenesis and ketogenesis. There must not be any other biochemical processes.
"This is not even open for debate. Countless clinical and animal studies demonstrate that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient."
So what is glucose and what is hypoglycemia? According to your statement hypoglycemia is fine
" I also believe that misinformation is not helpful to anyone"
Then why do you keep proffering it?
0 -
Domicinator wrote: »I have noticed some very interesting things since starting to lose lots of weight using "calorie counting" in MFP (other than the fact that it has gotten me MAJOR results--47 lbs lost so far!!). And I know what I'm about to say is going to get some backlash, but I don't really care that much.
1) The people I know that are on fad diets (low carb, paleo, wheat belly, etc), for the most part, are still overweight, haven't made much progress at all if they've made any to begin with, and are mostly just miserable because they're depriving themselves of foods that are perfectly fine. Somebody on the news told them that gluten, carbs, fat, and sugar are all horrible for you, and they believe it. Many of them even think they're "allergic" to these foods. In my 38 years on this planet, I have never seen so many people "allergic" to so many foods. I find it 100% ridiculous. We are turning into a society of hypochondriacs who are absolutely insufferable at restaurants. What's more, these fad diets and made up ailments do NOTHING to help people lose weight because they still pig out and don't even do any kind of exercise to counteract it.
2) The people I know who have had success getting down to a healthy weight did it through calorie counting and exercising, and the people I know who have maintained the weight loss have done it by continuing to log their food and exercise.
3) The people I know who are already at a healthy weight and always have been, such as all the runners in my family, ALSO tend to count calories, log, and weigh and measure their foods when cooking at home. They also tend to not eat out nearly as much as most people I know.
The reason I have observed these things is that when people see that I've lost a lot of weight, they want to talk about it with me. I have learned a lot about the health of my friends and family that I didn't know before. The people that are already fit and healthy work at it JUST AS HARD as I am. They just made it seem effortless before becuase I was not someone they would have ever talked to about fitness.
So the people you know who are good about consistency and discipline with diet and exercise are successful, but the people who are not tend to fail? That's not the fault of the eating style, that's people choosing an approach that doesn't fit with the reality of their lives. That does make low carb or paleo a fad, people who are able to consistent and disciplined in following those ways of eating are able to do it long term as well. Success is determined by the individual finding what is right for them and sticking with it, not any one diet.
The people who tend to run to these kind of diets and are looking for a short cut to weight loss tend to be the people who don't have the discipline or willingness to follow CICO. If eating like a caveman or whatever works for someone, then fine, do what you gotta do. But I feel like most of the time people do it because they think it's a quick fix. Then eventually it doesn't work and they say "Ugh, dieting just doesn't work for me."
This is why when I tell people how I'm losing weight, the often don't believe me and think that I'm doing something unhealthy or taking some kind of supplement or doing some kind of magical exercise to lose all the pounds. As someone else said, fad diets are big business and we've been surrounded by the hype for decades in the US. I think part of the reason Weight Watchers works so well for some people is that they feel like they're doing something other than standard dieting to lose the weight, when really they're just using a different number system for CICO. MFP is basically Weight Watchers but free.0 -
stevencloser wrote: ».....
They're not essential in the nutritional sense, which is "whatever your body can't create on its own". For you to live though, carbs are very much essential, you just don't have to eat them because of neoglucogenesis, which is a good thing because else you'd drop dead after 2-3 days of not eating carbs.
It would be nice if people actually knew something about what they post on.
McClellan WS, Du Bois EF (1930). "Clinical calorimetry. XLV. Prolonged meat diets with a study on kidney function and ketosis" (PDF). J. Biol. Chem. 87 (3): 651–668.
This paper is a study from 1930 in which two men consumed nothing but meat and remained in a perpetual state of ketosis for a full year while in constant observation in Bellvue hospital. Physicians treated children with epilepsy with ketogenic diets for years before effective antiepileptic medications were discovered. No body ever drops dead because they don't have dietary carbohydrate.0 -
stevencloser wrote: ».....
They're not essential in the nutritional sense, which is "whatever your body can't create on its own". For you to live though, carbs are very much essential, you just don't have to eat them because of neoglucogenesis, which is a good thing because else you'd drop dead after 2-3 days of not eating carbs.
It would be nice if people actually knew something about what they post on.
Pot meet kettle
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »christineja wrote: »Paleo is just Nourishing Traditions without the raw dairy. Nourishing Traditions is just Atkins with an "eat like the native peoples" spin, SoBeach is a more glamorous Atkins with more fish. There's nothing new here, whole foods/clean eating/blah blah they're all essentially just a low carb high fat diet.
I wouldn't call SoBeach low carb, or high fat, but yes, it's kind of a spin off on the mediterranean diet.
Isn't the intro period for SoBeach low carb?
I agree that after that it isn't, and paleo need not be either.
The optional first 2 weeks? Yes, probably, if one counted carbs, which you're asked not to, then yeah, the amount probably qualifies as "low carb" (though his "good carbs" aren't limited even then.) The diet itself, which the author says starts after the optional two weeks isn't.
And it's certainly not high fat.
Yeah, I just remembered something about cutting fruits. I wasn't sure how the intro period worked for whole grains, but my vague memory was that the whole thing looked likely low carb to me.
Otherwise, no disagreement.
Yep, I'd suspect if you do those first two weeks your carbs might be below, maybe 100. After that, whole grains, fruits etc...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions