google are for it now...

[greg]

All that stuff about carbs and high glycemic index foods is basically bullsh1t.

I'm not sure this is true. Foods which release energy quickly (ie. high/higher GI) cause the release of insulin to cap the rise in blood sugar. This excess sugar is stored as fat. Over stimulation of insulin can easily lead to type 2 diabetes too over time. Mood can be affected by the swings in bloodsugar too.

I cant see any evidence that avoiding simple carbs / high GI foods where possible is "bullsh1t".

One interesting anomaly regards the "GI Diet" though is it doesnt compensate for likely portion sizes - eg. carrots are considered high GI, yet only if you eat substantially more than a typical portion. Taking portion size into the equation results in carrots being fine.

I'm not convinced by the Atkins diet but the direct advice is more healthy than the basta5dised version many people actually follow.

 

[greg]

the real trick is to not loose muscle mass - the more muscle mass

Ensuring you get enough l-Glutamine in your diet also helps prevent catabolisation of existing muscle tissue.

 

[michaelab]

greg - there's no evidence whatsoever that avoiding high GI foods helps weight loss per se. Most of the pseudo science written by Atkins and in similar diet books about why they work is just that and has the same value as the sci-fi rubbish that cable manufacturers write about why their cables sound better.

Atkins never had the faintest idea about why his diet worked and died before the reasons were discovered (high protein intake reduces appetite, leading to a reduced calorie intake).

Michael.

 

[greg]

greg - there's no evidence whatsoever that avoiding high GI foods helps weight loss per se.

I'm not really referring to the "GI diet", I'm talking in context of eating a balanced diet. Are you saying avoiding foods which trigger the release of insulin due to the role insulin plays on storing excess blood sugar as fat is not good nutritional advice?

The revised US administration approved dietary advice (ie. the classic pyramid of recommended proportions) is revised mainly in the where it places high GI foods. Instead of food groups being split into three or four layers, specific food types of a similar category are placed quite differently. White rice is very near the top of the pyramid along with the type of foods you'd expect to see there, but brown rice is much lower down (from memory). By balanced diet what exactly do you mean?

I hope it includes dark chocolate which has recently been found to contain amongst the highest sources of anti-oxidants.

 

[michaelab]

Crossed wires I think. I agree with you about high GI foods. I was specifically referring to the idea that cutting down on high GI foods is some kind of weight-loss silver bullet as Atkins and clones like to claim.

Dark chocolate is good, I agree and I've read about the recent evidence about anti-oxidants. However, as with similar findings about red wine it's not a cue to start devouring Lindt 70% Cocoa by the packet. Everything in moderation

Michael.

 

[julian2002]

michael,
i'm being very careful about what i eat - yes i do eat a lot of protien however i also consume a lot of green vegetables as well - if you are careful you can make 20g of carbs a day go a long way - i also suppliment with multivitamins, minerals and amino's.
today i've eaten well under 20g of carbs and that's including the 270g of mixed salad (letuce, corn, carrot, peppers, etc.) i had for lunch with 2 skinless chicken breasts and a dollop of olive oil mayonaise. i also drink a fair amount of cranberry juice which has a very low carb rating (0.8%) and a lot of water.
sunday dinner was 2 pork chops, mushrooms in a garlic and cream sauce, red cabage, broccoli and roast butternut squash. probably went slightly over 20g of carbs there but not enough to impact the diet.
as you say reducing carbs is just a way of reducing your calorie intake - if you do it sensibly there's no reason why it shouldn;t be safe, healthy. it's just that i find it easier to manage my calorie intake whilst following dr atkins guidelines - also i find that i feel fuller quicker when i have a lot of protien - which helps.
as greg implies - if you actually read the atkins book it's a lot more involved than just hogging down fried eggs and steak. the fact that you feel fuller quicker is mentioned as is an extreme version of the diet where your calorie intake is dropped to 1200 kcal per day to kick start your weight loss - however you are only supposed to follow this for a week. you are always prompted to consult your doctor - which i did and he was more worried about my 25 stone weight than any potential health risks of a particular diet.
cheers


julian

 

[greg]

I think it makes a lot of sense to keep on top of carb intake and to eat more strategically to provide energy when you do exercise.

Julian - from what you've described alone IMO I think you're on the right lines. My neighbours kind of did it the complete opposite way. Loads of hard cheese, roast meats, etc. and iceberg lettuce for veg coupled with little or no exercise. They're nice folks, but I think represent what's bad about the wider Atkins mindset.

I generally eat a balanced and varied diet, I dont really drink excessively, I dont smoke, etc. My problem is I just dont manage to stick at getting out on my bike, etc. enough to drop the extra 20 lbs I'm carrying. I havent gained any weight in four years, but I just can seem to drop much either.

 

[julian2002]

greg,
i've cut out cheese completely for the moment - even so you're only supposed to have 200g of the stuff on induction as it contains lactose which is a sugar (although not as bad as glucose). when i back off the diet i'll usually use a 200g wedge of brie as a snack throughout the day - it's also convienient to carry and munch on the go if i know i'm going to be out and unable to stick to the diet in any other way.
i've found that excersise is equally important to loosing weight. even if it's only 1/2 an hours walk around the streets or shopping mall at lunchtime it's going to help immensely.
was 15 2 this morning so back on track.
cheers


julian.

 

[la toilette]

Yep, exercise is a major factor, no doubt about it, you have to bloody starve yourself to lose weight without putting some physical effort into it. I read somewhere that researchers have found that completely reversing the Atkins diet produces similar results to the actual Atkins diet - that is; cutting out all protein and eating only carbs. Anyway, as far as I understand Atkins was overweight and died of a heart attack, so personally I'd be inclined to avoid his advice. It simply ain't healthy to cut out a major food group, whatever it is.
200g of brie a day? hmmm. I'd stick to Ryvita or fruit.

 

[julian2002]

atkins died of a blow to the head courtesy of an icy new york pavement.

hey, i like brie - fruit i like too but ryvita blek.....

i can totally believe the 'inverse atkins' working - i bet the person doing it didn;t find it as easy to do though due to the way that protien makes you feel fuller, quicker.
cheers


julian

 

[la toilette]

atkins died of a blow to the head courtesy of an icy new york pavement.

Well it just goes to show that I am 100% gullible to crap I read on the web! Ha ha.

hey, i like brie - fruit i like too but ryvita blek.....

I love brie, I'm a big cheese fan, but 200g a day sounds a lot - that's a kilo per working week!
I can eat ryvita by the packet load, I love it, the dark rye stuff especially, and if you're careful with spreads and fillings it's pretty healthy.... although recently I've been piling stilton on it to use up my extensive xmas cheese selection that's starting to stink the fridge out in a big way.

 

[greg]

I think it is to be expected that a backlash would occur against the Atkins diet, largely because it kind of ruined a lot of other diets, so there are lots of people who feel disgruntled and other who like to debunk popular "myths". Note: I've never followed it.

However, talking about carbs rather than the Atkins diet. Really it has only been since the advent of agriculture than carbs have become such a major part of the human diet. Growing grain makes for a convenient supply of food which provides energy and keeps people alive. In the case of rice, which contains some protein, it is literally enough to live on (though at some nutritional and developmental cost to the individual). Basically you dont have to chase it, and it has formed the basis of our progression from hunter gatherer and nomad to the formation of larger settlements.

So historically speaking why should a normal diet consist of substantial quantities of simple or complex carbs? I dont think this particularly represents what humans need.

Protein is a much more flexible food group - in simple terms it can be converted to muscle tissue AND used as energy. I dont really accept that the Atkins diet (as actually presented in the book) is especially unhealthy or in fact flying in the face of proven nutritional advice. Though I dont buy that whole "ketones in your breath" metabolism change thing. I've seen nothing to prove that at all.

I would also add that as humans in countries like the UK generally now perform less activity, it seems a natural change that we should endevour to cosume fewer carbs, whose role in our diet is pretty much just about providing a source of energy.

It seems logical eating fewer carbs causes weight loss due to eating fewer easily absorbed calories. If eating protein causes you to feel fuller quicker, is a trick of protein? AFAIU it is a trick of carbs to not trigger that response in order for the person to eat more in order to pack some fat on - a natural mechanism to prolong survival. An analogy being that - Oysters have no mechanism to store energy for later use (fat), but have a ubiquitous supply of food. Polar bears have a massively effective function to store energy as fat and their food is few and far between. Humans store fat like a polar bear and have food as available as an Oyster.

I can't see how reversing the Atkins diet (eating more carbs and less protein) could result in similar weight loss. Carbs are purely an easily absorbed energy food, so would surely make striking a balance between calories ingested and calories used harder. Just switching doesnt make any sense. That seems to be just some silly way of suggesting of underlining the advice "dont cut out any one food group". I'm not saying that is bad advice, but REDUCING the food group which centres around energy intake seems to make sense.

 

[mr cat]

Well it just goes to show that I am 100% gullible to crap I read on the web! Ha ha.


I love brie, I'm a big cheese fan, but 200g a day sounds a lot - that's a kilo per working week!
I can eat ryvita by the packet load, I love it, the dark rye stuff especially, and if you're careful with spreads and fillings it's pretty healthy.... although recently I've been piling stilton on it to use up my extensive xmas cheese selection that's starting to stink the fridge out in a big way.

yum - talking of brie - if you get a whole camenbert and bake it until it goes all soft and gooey (about 15 minutes), it goes lovely with a hot baguette a bit of butter and some cranberry sauce...!!

oh, and don't forget the wine...

 

[la toilette]

That kind of talk is never going to inspire anyone to diet, in fact I'm off to the fridge right now.....

 

[julian2002]

not keen on camambert - tastes funny. and BREAD whew you're joking aren;t you?

greg,i should have added the caveat that the calorie intake should be the same for both diets (atkins and inverse atkins). the reason that atkins 'works' seems to be that it suppresses the appetite quicker than other 'high/er' carb diets.

 

[greg]

greg,i should have added the caveat that the calorie intake should be the same for both diets (atkins and inverse atkins). the reason that atkins 'works' seems to be that it suppresses the appetite quicker than other 'high/er' carb diets.

I see what you mean, but I reckon if eating the low protein high carb opposite - apart from suffering more with swings in blood sugar and cravings and not feeling full when you finish your allocated portion, etc. you might actually see different results because of the potential for insulin to become involved/more involved. There's also the possibility that muscle mass could be lost (3 times heavier than fat) which could give the impression of fat loss (judging by weight), but might be quite a different picture in reality (ie. reduced muscle mass and less reduction in fat). I might be off the mark though (it's been known )