Posted on 07/05/2002 5:34:43 PM PDT by Pokey78
Nam Vet
Nam Vet
The same here. I was put on a low fat low cholesterol diet because of hypertension and a high cholesterol count. I lost eight pounds in four weeks. Not a good thing for me because when I started this diet I was 5'6" and 146 lb's. I've modified the diet to gain back the weight.
My point here is in my case a low fat diet caused me to lose weight even when I didn't need or want to.
Quite often, people who are opposed to a low carb way of eating will lecture you in this way because you scare them. They are addicted to their bread, pasta and cereal. The PC dogma over the past decade has provided them with the excuse to continue feeding their cravings and someone like you coming along is no different than a reformed alcoholic approaching a current alcoholic still in denial.
Someone mentioned Senator Pardek's cognitive dissonance. I noticed it too. The rabid anti-Atkins types pepper their disagreement with all kinds of hyperbolic, completley untrue statements about what low carbers advocate (eating a pound of bacon) and made up, yet unprovable "facts" or "facts" they know cannot be easily disputed (no pro Athletes eat an Atkins diet) in order to support their adherance to more mainstream dogma. The article in question does quite a bit to discredit the dogma and actually demonstrates that adherance to the dogma has not only failed to produce the health benefits it promises, but actually may have exacerbated the the very problems it claims to cure. Many of the posters here have done quite a bit to discuss the metabolic effects of a high carbohydrate diet, the impact that high carb diets have on hunger (an actually biological state as well as a mental one) and other aspects of the debate, but that is all ignored or simply dismissed as unimportant. It is far from unimportant. It is the basis and foundation of the debate itself!
For folks like Senator Pardek, it is much easier to spout off about will power or merely repeat the dogma that is being challenged as the unquestionable truth, than to actually examine the logic, science or even personal experiences of people posting here. His imagined "pro athlete" (which is most certainly a horrible basis for figuring out what makes sense for the rest of us) is all he needs to justify ignoring the actual debate and continuing to believe dogma.
NOW HEAR THIS!! People are DIFFERENT. People have different body types, hormone levels, stress levels, activity levels. Some people have insulin problems, some people have digestive problems and some people have heart problems.
Isn't it possible that people, as different as they are, may not require the same diet to be healthy?
So, if low fat works for you, great! If low carb works for you, outstanding! Maybe you can eat anything you want as long as you exercise 30 minutes per day, wonderful!
Geez people, someone might think y'all are angling for a Nobel prize in being "more right" than anyone else.
Bingo!
Each food has something good in it to cancel out the bad from other foods
Not a bad idea. Many of my lib acquaintances are frothing at the bit to sue "greedy" food manufacturers and restaurant chains for "making" people obese. No kidding, I'm in this food fight fulltime. This article gives me plenty of ammo to bop them with. Your comments help, too.
The only problem with their announcement is that there have NEVER been any studies that have shown ANY LINK WHAT-SO-EVER with dietary cholesterol and blood serum cholesterol... no link at all.
The article that started this thread is merely following where the science is leading... where the studies are taking us. There is more objective information being developed. It is amazing to watch those who refuse to look and instead believe with religious fervor the errors of the past.
How about a whole swimming team? Check out the chapter titled, "Elite Athletes in The Zone" in the book, "Enter the Zone", by Barry Sears. He took the Stanford University swim team and placed them on the Zone diet. The took 8 gold medals in Barcelona, Spain in 1992.
The Zone diet advocates calories allocated as 30% from protein, 30% from fat and 40% from carbohydrates. The total caloric intake is keyed to the number of pounds of lean body mass and level of physical exercise. A 200 lb weight lifter with 15% body fat would consume 170 grams of protein to maintain that lean body mass. Total daily calories would be 2266 as 680 calories of protein, 680 calories of fat (75 grams) and 906 calories of carbohydrate (226 grams). A relatively sedentary person with similar body composition would eat half that amount in the same relative proportions.
I used the Zone diet starting in June 1996. Starting at 204 lbs in June, I had dropped to 187 by mid-November. By April 1997 I was at 173. I reached 163 in June 1997. During that time frame, my exercise was inline speed skating. In June 1996, I could manage 5 miles in about 28 minutes. A year later, I did 15 miles in 66 minutes. Less blubber to push around and far more fit. The exercise was a requirement for me to make any progress. I had cancer in 1985 and the net effect of the treatments was to severely reduce my metabolic rate.
I follow "The Zone" as a quantitative measure of how much to eat. There is also a qualitative side to the equation. Peter D'Adamo wrote an interesting book titled, "Eat Right 4 Your Type". His work is premised on ABO blood types. There are certain foods that are good/neutral/harmful for a given blood type. The blood type is indicative of the antigenic type of all the body's cells.
I spent years going to ear/nose/throat doctors trying to deal with a persistent sinus problem. After reading through D'Adamo's book, it appeared that the causitive agent was a wheat allergy. Bingo! No more post nasal drip. No more aches and pains in the joints. Today, I sometimes "slip" and consume food with wheat. All the symptoms return and remain for 2 to 3 days until the wheat has cleared.
About 10 yrs ago I had (still do) heart problems. My cholesterol was 250+. The cardiologist wanted me to go vegetarian. I started the Dean Ornish diet, strict vegetarian.
In 3 months my cholesterol had dropped to 202. I got a sugar craving that I never had in my life.
Needless to say that diet went by the boards.
A few years ago I tried the Protein Power Diet, a modified Atkins diet. In 3 months my cholesterol dropped to 152.
My wife has always had a reflux problem. That went away in 3 days.
The sad truth is I've become a carb junkie but this thread has pushed me back to the low carb way of thinking again.
One other comment.
I don't think the 'food industry' is to blame for our diet. They are responding to the prevalent fad. They are supplying what the public wants.
Remember a few years ago when food coloring was 'bad'. Everything HAD to be clear. Clear soft drinks, clear deodorant,etc.
The food pyramid is in response to the animal rights crowd. That crowd is going to be pi$$ed by these new studies.
IMHO it shows that George McGovern and the vegetable oil and grain industries are guilty of a massive fraud.
Proportionately, my eating habits fit the "zone" fairly well. But, I tend to maintain my weight at about 3000 calories per day. I haven't counted what I eat for quite a while, but that was where I stood a few years ago. I'm essentially the same weight not, +/- 10 pounds.
Haven't had the bodyfat calipers done, but the rough estimate by the charts (waist / weight ratio) puts me at around 18% which is acceptable though I'd prefer around 14-15%. But I don't care about it enough to actually strive for that goal. I have too much other stuff to worry about.
That wasn't my experience, but the low-carb philosophy holds that for many people, low-fat, high-carbohydrate ways of life are a disaster. The past 30 years of American life seem to bear that out. It doesn't matter whether the carbs come in the form of potatoes, breads, or Gummi Bears. To the body, they're pretty much the same. Thus it would be no surprise to find that the weight comes back on rather quickly once high quantities of carbs are reintroduced.
This bounce-back not a failure of the Atkins diet, but a failure of the standard American diet. Kind of like saying: "I feel better when I stop banging my head against the wall, but when I start banging my head again, it hurts; therefore, it's bad for me to stop banging my head against the wall."
I'm not out to convert anyone else. People have different metabolisms, so your mileage may vary. If someone does well with low-fat diets, then that's what they should do. If I ever stop doing well with a higher-protein diet, then I'll do something else.
I'm a hunter-gatherer. I go to the grocery store almost every day. I guess I identify with the !Kung of Africa, the Eskimos, and the Aborigines of Australia and New Zealand. You gotta' admit that their triglyceride, body-fat, and cholesterol levels are pretty good!
In September, I switched to a low carb (no sugar, no starch) diet. It includes lots of protein, including plenty of red meat (since starch is cut out) + a reasonable amount of fruit and vegetables. Animal fat is no longer restricted, though partially hydrogenated fat is.
End result is that I feel and look 7 or 8 years younger than I did, have more energy and endurance and my anxiety level is the lowest I remember.
I know there are convincing studies and statistics for both sides of this debate, but for me, since I've tried both, the way I feel compared to the way I felt, says it all.
My feeling is that low fat diets not only cause most folks to get fatter, they accelerate the aging process and are destructive to good health.
The Eskimos are a very good example I might add.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.