Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So far, in terms of long and healthy lives, the research shows that the healthiest diets are those that are the highest in terms of carbs.
Don't know about what research you speak of, but the hard evidence shows as a whole we are no perfect picture of health in this country. I can guarantee this fact does not come from a low carb diet. It comes from the current diet a lot of Americans follow which is low fat high carb.
It doesn't look like it's working does it?
Quote:
From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
More than 2 in 3 adults are considered to be overweight or obese.
More than 1 in 3 adults are considered to be obese.
More than 1 in 20 adults are considered to have extreme obesity.
About one-third of children and adolescents ages 6 to 19 are considered to be overweight or obese.
More than 1 in 6 children and adolescents ages 6 to 19 are considered to be obese.
There is a major difference between healthy carbohydrates and non-healthy carbohydrates. They are called simple carbohydrates (non-healthy) and complex carbohydrates (healthy). In most of these popular weight-loss articles, they don't differentiate and just talk about 'carbohydrates' as though it was all one and the same. The simple carbohydrate is one in which the fiber and many of the nutrients have been removed in processing and refining. Complex carbs retain fiber and nutrients and are made up of long molecular structures which also promote healthy bowel movements/elimination, which refined carbs have just the opposite effect (constipation). This link talks about the differences....
There is a major difference between healthy carbohydrates and non-healthy carbohydrates. They are called simple carbohydrates (non-healthy) and complex carbohydrates (healthy). In most of these popular weight-loss articles, they don't differentiate and just talk about 'carbohydrates' as though it was all one and the same. The simple carbohydrate is one in which the fiber and many of the nutrients have been removed in processing and refining. Complex carbs retain fiber and nutrients and are made up of long molecular structures which also promote healthy bowel movements/elimination, which refined carbs have just the opposite effect (constipation). This link talks about the differences....
The carbohydrates make no difference in digestion one way or another. It's the fiber (or lack of). Your article mentions that over and over. As for the diets mentioned in the articles I posted, they mention low carb and yes they don't differentiate. They only imply the amount and not the type, so even if the carbs were the "good" kind, the amount was less than the people in the opposing group. It's beyond the scope of their study. I was talking about different types of diets in general. Also when I say 'low carb', I don't mean 'no-carb'. There are carbs in almost everything we eat and naturally we would want those carbs to come from (whole) plant sources. There is a second part though and that would be the fat, whether low or high and what type of fat also comes into play.
There is a major difference between healthy carbohydrates and non-healthy carbohydrates. They are called simple carbohydrates (non-healthy) and complex carbohydrates (healthy). In most of these popular weight-loss articles, they don't differentiate and just talk about 'carbohydrates' as though it was all one and the same. The simple carbohydrate is one in which the fiber and many of the nutrients have been removed in processing and refining. Complex carbs retain fiber and nutrients and are made up of long molecular structures which also promote healthy bowel movements/elimination, which refined carbs have just the opposite effect (constipation). This link talks about the differences....
It is always a give-away when the "experts" don't differentiate between actual foods and carbohydrates. It is very obvious that they are either being disingenuous in their efforts to make a quick buck or that they are not knowledgeable about how nutrition actually works.
The carbohydrates make no difference in digestion one way or another. It's the fiber (or lack of). Your article mentions that over and over. As for the diets mentioned in the articles I posted, they mention low carb and yes they don't differentiate. They only imply the amount and not the type, so even if the carbs were the "good" kind, the amount was less than the people in the opposing group. It's beyond the scope of their study. I was talking about different types of diets in general. Also when I say 'low carb', I don't mean 'no-carb'. There are carbs in almost everything we eat and naturally we would want those carbs to come from (whole) plant sources. There is a second part though and that would be the fat, whether low or high and what type of fat also comes into play.
How the carbohydrate is packaged in food matters significantly and makes all the difference in the world. Carbohydrate packaged in the form of vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and fruits with all the thousands of micronutrients that are part of these package are significantly different than overly processed and refined carbohydrates that have been removed from their natural packaging.
That is the key piece of the puzzle that almost all of the "low carbohydrate" fanatics are missing.
That is the key piece of the puzzle that almost all of the "low carbohydrate" fanatics are missing.
The only problem is that the people that did the study which I provide the links to are not "low carbohydrate" fanatics as you stated. They are actually the "American College of Physicians". Did you click on the link? just curious. They shouldn't have any bias one way or another.
The only problem is that the people that did the study which I provide the links to are not "low carbohydrate" fanatics as you stated, they are actually the "American College of Physicians". Did you click on the link? just curious. They shouldn't have any bias one way or another.
Yes I did read the study. First of all it was not comparing high carb to low carb. It was comparing low fat to low carb.
Secondly, in terms of carbs, there was no thought to the types of foods containing those carbs. They didn't use whole foods for the "low fat" diet, so there was no comparison to a whole food/high carb diet. The relative fiber intake for each group was almost the same (15-16 grams per day). This indicates that neither group was eating very much in terms of whole foods such as vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and fruits. An actual high carb, whole food diet would have fiber ranges in the area of 40 to 60 grams per day, rather than the measly 15-16 grams in the study.
Will a low carb diet that cuts out high carb, highly refined foods be better than the standard American diet with a high level of carbs coming from refined food (which was, basically, what this study was comparing)? Probably.
Will it be better than a high carb diet composed mostly of vegetables, legumes, whole grains and fruit? Not a chance.
Again, packaging of the nutrients matters significantly.
Last edited by Just A Guy; 10-25-2016 at 01:12 PM..
"Evidence from prospective cohort studies indicates that a high consumption of plant-based foods such as fruit and vegetables, nuts, and whole grains is associated with a significantly lower risk of coronary artery disease and stroke."
"We performed 2-week food exchanges in subjects from the same populations, where African Americans were fed a high-fibre, low-fat African-style diet and rural Africans a high-fat, low-fibre western-style diet, under close supervision. In comparison with their usual diets, the food changes resulted in remarkable reciprocal changes in mucosal biomarkers of cancer risk and in aspects of the microbiota and metabolome known to affect cancer risk, best illustrated by increased saccharolytic fermentation and butyrogenesis, and suppressed secondary bile acid synthesis in the African Americans."
"In the Lifestyle Heart Trial, Ornish found that 82% of patients with diagnosed heart disease who followed his program had some level of regression of atherosclerosis. Comprehensive lifestyle changes appear to be the catalyst that brought about this regression of even severe coronary atherosclerosis after only 1 year. In his plant-based regimen, 10% of calories came from fat, 15% to 20% from protein, and 70% to 75% from carbohydrate..."
Last edited by Just A Guy; 10-25-2016 at 01:57 PM..
I never said it [carb restriction] was for athletes. It is for weight loss and in my case especially it is for blood sugar control/diabetes. Most use this for weight loss. I work out and bike 10 miles a day with no problems with fatigue and that is after a 10 hour work day (I'm no athlete either). So I wouldn't say this diet is for running marathons, but I can keep up with my daily life and stay healthy with very good lipid and blood glucose profiles. Not only that, I've lost 40+ lbs, lowered my blood pressure, eliminated my prostate problems and I feel much better.
Wait a minute...
In another post, you said you are taking medication to control glucose levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gguerra
I am taking berberine as well. I think it serves more or less the same function as Metformin. Unfortunately, the berberine by itself will not lower my BG enough. I still take Glimepiride 2mg for blood sugar.
The current body of science is clear on what the healthiest way of eating is. Will that change in the future? Maybe, but I think most people would be much wiser to follow what the overwhelming body of evidence currently shows.
I think you would enjoy reading the" book by Mark Hyman I am currently reading, Eat Fat Get Thin. Yes the title is a bit silly, but it's not a weight loss diet. There are 21 pages of notes.
It's all about eating a mostly vegan (or it could be completely if you choose) that allows generous amounts of the fats we need. (Not highly-processed omega six oils, but cold-press olive oil, nuts, flaxseed, chia seed, etc.)
One study sited compares a low fat vs a high fat vegan diet. Apparently health outcomes (lipid profile) was better for the latter.
It is Jenkins, Wong and Kendall in BJM Open. 2014. Effect of six month vegan low carbohydrate diet on cardiovascular risk factors, etc
There is quite a bit of research showing that good quality (not highly processed) omega 3 containing fat from healthy food is necessary for health.
Highly heat-processed high-omega 6 fat has been linked to health problems. You don't get those bad fats if you eat a whole foods, (natural unprocessed foods) diet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
