If carb makes us fat, why are low carb gurus... fat?

[rareboy]

^ Well I also know about it and I know a lot about nutrition and a lot about metabolism. And losing weight.

You seem to expend a lot of effort trying to make the case for starches. We get it. You like potatoes. And oatmeal.

At the moment, you are working a lot of these carbs off and converting a lot of them to muscle through worshiping at the gym. And that is fine. As you note, potatoes are actually quite healthy. So are some oats. Pasta not so much.

But just because you are able to spend time working out at the gym does not mean that other people can...or even want to for that matter.

And as you age, your metabolism is going to change, in part because of activity levels but also because of organic changes that occur as well.

My own guidelines for an 1800 calorie benchmark daily diet are:

Fats 75 g
Chol 30 mg
carbs 100 mg
salt 2300 mg
fibre 28 mg
sugar 100 cal (25g)
protein 56 g

I actually consume about 800 to 900 calories per day, so I am looking at not only the base quantities but also percentages.

And as I have written many times....over the last 41 weeks, I have tried to make every calorie healthy, which means cutting out simple carbs and focusing on proteins, healthy fats and fibre that provide the essential levels of nutrients, vitamins and minerals a relatively sedentary male of my age needs.

I am not going to try to convince anyone that my diet is better than someone else's, nor can I claim that it would work for everyone.

I can say, however, that it is well known and accepted that simple carbs found in many starchy diets are contributing to obesity. The people you show who promote starches and plant based diets are also unquestionably active people....likely runners.

And let's be clear here. Dr. MacDougall is first and foremost promoting a vegetarian diet heavy on legumes, brown rice, and a variety of vegetables, including the 'starchy' ones like corn, squash and potatoes as well as all the other non-starchy veg as well.

https://www.verywellfit.com/the-starch-solution-diet-4771538

What he is promoting is a plant based diet based on bulk, which allows people to load up on their calories by avoiding all the concentrated calories found in fats and sugars. Which makes sense. It always comes back to 'If it is a plant, it is good for you...if it is made in a plant....it is not good for you'

Is his diet for everyone? Not even close. It lacks variety and is basically a designed to fail experiment for the vast majority of westerners. It has been roundly criticized for being too strict.

But if it works for you, and others, then enjoy it in good health.

 

[Dominus]

You like to remember that, on't you: you keep a trophy or something?

There is a huge misconception out there that once you have diabetes that's it game over you will have it for the rest of your life. I keep bringing this up to reach as many people as I can that diabetes is 100% curable. I'm raising awareness in my own way.

If anyone doubt that diabetes can be cured, just do a google search. Or ask your doctor. Don't even have to take my word for it.

When I was diagnosed with type 2 about 5 years ago, I remember it was scary as hell. I thought goddamn it why me? I really thought I would have to carry this thing around for the rest of my life. My doctor at the time told me there was a chance that I could cure myself. At the time, I was too distracted by my grief of being diagnosed with the damn thing that I didn't really understand the implication of what she said.

I don't know about type 1, but type 2 is 100% curable, people! And get this, you can cure yourself of type 2 without taking any medication. I was on various drugs for years before I started twisting my doctor's arm about an alternative approach.

Let me explain this in a way that people can better understand the diabetes problem.

Imagine the kitchen sink and drain as the human body. When the sink functions properly, when you turn on the water it should drain just fine. Water represents sugar. But sometimes the drain gets partially clogged and you have the water on full blast, you will get backed up water in your sink. The medication that people gets prescribed is more or less like using a cup to remove the backed up water from the sink. In other words, it's just easing the symptom. If you want the water to drain normally again, you have to unclog the drain. In other words, you have to fix your health for your system to work correctly again.

Everybody knows carb turns to sugar. But it is not as simple as that. Avoiding carb as a first step toward curing yourself of diabetes is like turning down or turning off the faucet. Eventually, water will drain (slowly) and without water coming from the faucet your blood sugar level will go down. Most people at this point think hey I'm cured of diabetes. Well, no. The drain is still clogged whether you see backed up water or not.

This is why limiting or eliminating carb to lower blood sugar works. You're cutting off the source of sugar from your diet. But this is still a temporary fix just like stop adding water into the sink to let the backed up water drain (slowly) is a temporary fix.

If you want to completely fix the problem, you have to unclog the damn drain. And if you want to fix the diabetes problem, you have to fix your health. Once the drain is unclogged, you can have your faucet on full blast and it will still drain properly. In the same way, if you have your health fixed, you can eat potato, rice, oatmeal, fruits and vegetables, and even ice cream and you will still be fine.

People are scared of carb in the same way that they are scared to put water into their kitchen sink that has a clogged drain. They are so used to having a clogged drain that they think water is the enemy. They are so focused on not putting in anymore water to prevent backup of water in the sink that they have forgotten the REAL PROBLEM is the clogged drain. And in much the same way, the REAL PROBLEM is not the carb and starches. It's your health, people, that you need to fix. Sure, limiting carb intake will temporarily alleviate your blood sugar problem. But rather than keep trying to ease the symptom, don't you want to cure it completely?

I know I will get a lot of hate for "preaching" this. Most people are too comfortable believing that diabetes can never be cured. They want to keep shoving processed fried crap into their mouths while blaming carbs for their problems. They justify this by pointing to french fries and say see that's carb therefore carb is bad, completely ignoring the fact that it's been deep fried in oil. If this was the case, then would it be totally ok to just drink the oil if the potato part of it was the bad part?

 

[Dominus]

^ Well I also know about it and I know a lot about nutrition and a lot about metabolism. And losing weight.

You seem to expend a lot of effort trying to make the case for starches. We get it. You like potatoes. And oatmeal.

...

Is his diet for everyone? Not even close. It lacks variety and is basically a designed to fail experiment for the vast majority of westerners. It has been roundly criticized for being too strict.

Actually, no. It may seem this way. I actually expend a lot of effort promoting the idea that starches are like the water that's in a kitchen sink with a clogged drain. Yes, turning off the faucet to allow the water to slowly drain away will temporarily alleviate the problem just like how limiting or eliminating carbs will lower the blood sugar level. But wouldn't unclogging the drain be a better thing to do?

Believe it or not, what you're doing with your calorie limits and focusing on healthy sources of calories is actually unclogging the drain. You just don't know you're doing it.

Mcdougall diet is indeed too strict. Believe it or not, my husband and I enjoy foods of many kinds. We don't strictly follow the mcdougall diet, either. There are indeed more than one way to get to China.

And believe it or not, I'm really not trying to force how I live on anyone. I'm really trying to promote the idea that people ought to be fixing their health rather than blame the potato for diabetes.

Mcbrion speaks of his relatives being plagued by diabetes. And he seems to be blaming it on potato. In fact, diabetes affects poor minorities a lot more than other groups of people. Dare I say these people are also a lot more likely to eat fries, chicken nuggets, big macs, fried chicken, and buffalo wings than a nice vegetable soup with potato? If potato is indeed the enemy, shouldn't I be losing my legs by now eating all that evil starches? It's the fried foods, the french fries, the mcdouble, the quadruple mega cheeseburger, etc. that's the culprit behind clogging up the drain.

PS - I did not cure my diabetes by limiting or alleviating starches and other carbs.

 

[Alistair]

The same thread every week and the same arguing.

I think you guys are just getting trolled.

 

[belamyi]

^ Wow, there have been more like this one?

You sure keep good notice and record of all the sh!t going on in here

 

[mcbrion]

ANY high glycemic food, consumed in quantity, convert to fat (the body only has two things on it: fat or muscle. Potatoes convert to fat. They're not a protein-based food). I.E., :

Potatoes, along with most rice, pastas, are all high glycemic foods.
baked russet potato 111
instant mashed potatoes 87
boiled white potato 82 (average)

(My Note: 82 was never considered "average" until "experts" shifted the glycemic index downward to exclude anytHing over 65 as "medium." NOT the case in 1997
These are all - inarguably - high glycemic foods with high glycemic loads. That is my point about starches. I do note that the glycemic index, which I have been aware of since 1995, seems to have become more "elastic," with potatoes, which were originally stated (and still are, as far as the glycemic index is concerned) has been downgraded to "medium glycemic load."

Sure, if you have small amounts of anything, it will not affect the body significantly. I am speaking, strictly speaking, of the glycemic value of a food. A fried (french fried) potato is obviously bad, but that does not negate the potato's glycemic index - nor how it digests in the body. Does it have some good values to it? Of course. Potassium, for one.
But still a starch, and starches are less good than other types of food, although some see their "complex" nature as good.
As for my family, that was simply an example in poor eating habits.

There's a reason body builders don't eat starchy foods. They don't help the muscle-to-fat ratio. But if you like starches, by all means, eat them. It's not the food alone, but the combination of glycemic index AND glycemic load (the "load" is virtually never mentioned by other "experts.")

This - by the way - was one of the very first studies on Glycemic Index. David Mendosa, who appeared online in 1995. He's updated his info, but the basics remain the same.

Here's his site: www.Mendosa.com And the table of glycemic index and glycemic loads is here: http://mendosa.com/gilists.htm

"Revised International Table of Glycemic Index (GI) and Glycemic Load (GL) Values—2008
By David Mendosa

This is the definitive table for both the glycemic index and the glycemic load. I am able to reproduce it here courtesy of the author, Professor Jennie Brand-Miller of the University of Sydney. It is based on a table in different format but no more foods published December 2008 in Diabetes Care. However, only the abstract is free online there.

GI of 55 is low; GL of 10 is low.
This table includes the glycemic index and glycemic load of more than 2,480 individual food items. Not all of them, however, are available in the United States. They represent a true international effort of testing around the world.

The glycemic index (GI) is a numerical system of measuring how much of a rise in circulating blood sugar a carbohydrate triggers–the higher the number, the greater the blood sugar response. So a low GI food will cause a small rise, while a high GI food will trigger a dramatic spike. A list of carbohydrates with their glycemic values is shown below. A GI of 70 or more is high, a GI of 56 to 69 inclusive is medium, and a GI of 55 or less is low.

The glycemic load (GL) is a relatively new way to assess the impact of carbohydrate consumption that takes the glycemic index into account, but gives a fuller picture than does glycemic index alone. A GI value tells you only how rapidly a particular carbohydrate turns into sugar. It doesn't tell you how much of that carbohydrate is in a serving of a particular food. You need to know both things to understand a food's effect on blood sugar. That is where glycemic load comes in. The carbohydrate in watermelon, for example, has a high GI. But there isn't a lot of it, so watermelon's glycemic load is relatively low. A GL of 20 or more is high, a GL of 11 to 19 inclusive is medium, and a GL of 10 or less is low."


And, by the way, no one EVER said that "ALL carbs are bad." That was the ignorance of those who left out the entirety of the statement, and simply glommed on to the limited capabilities of a "newsbite" without hearing the science of carbs in its entirety. Given an orange, an apple and squash are carbs, their arguments were pretty inane, even back then.

 

[belamyi]

Like they say, "rich people's problems"...

 

[Dominus]

I eat both bags in one week.



I refuse to believe that the Irish or the Polish before the 20th century were fat and sickly. And I also refuse to believe that East Asians, who consume more rice than anyone else by a huge margin were obese and sickly before the western diet was introduced. In fact, even today east Asian nations have much lower rate of obesity than the west and they consume way more starches than the west.

This is what my doctor said to me a while back. Suppose you have a clogged drain. The water starts overflowing. Sure, it would help if you stop pouring the water into the sink. But honestly, are you really going to blame the problem on water or on the clog?

Before the western diet was introduced to the world, billions of people ate plenty of starches and other types of carbs with no problem.

Instead of blaming the overflowing water on the water, isn't it better to take care of the clog?

I eat that much potato a week. Also rice. Again, do I look fat and sickly?

 

[belamyi]

I eat both bags in one week.

View attachment 1413219

I refuse to believe that the Irish or the Polish before the 20th century were fat and sickly. And I also refuse to believe that East Asians, who consume more rice than anyone else by a huge margin were obese and sickly before the western diet was introduced. In fact, even today east Asian nations have much lower rate of obesity than the west and they consume way more starches than the west.

This is what my doctor said to me a while back. Suppose you have a clogged drain. The water starts overflowing. Sure, it would help if you stop pouring the water into the sink. But honestly, are you really going to blame the problem on water or on the clog?

Before the western diet was introduced to the world, billions of people ate plenty of starches and other types of carbs with no problem.

Instead of blaming the overflowing water on the water, isn't it better to take care of the clog?

I eat that much potato a week. Also rice. Again, do I look fat and sickly?

Remember it is not only about what you eat, it is also about your physical activity.
The old saying in some European languages about the older males getting the better, more energetic food, is about needing it for the harder work they had to do everyday.
Today, on the contrary, it is the younger ones who are considered the ones who need better feeding... not because of a reversal, but because you can either afford better nourishment for everybody, or simply because you do not need to feed for had work, but merely for maintaining a condition that adults have already reached, but minors have not yet.

 

[mcbrion]

Asian rice is not stripped of its nutrients, the way our rice (sold in America) is. There is Basmati rice, with a very low glycemic index. I assume the Chinese are not paying $6 for 12 ounces of 'low glycemic rice' the way we are.
Comparing what other countries eat to what the US citizens eat is not a great way to compare. I've tasted Asian rice: it bears little resemblance to Uncle Ben's. Likewise, other products that WE eat is not the same as what THEY eat. If you look at the Mendoza glycemic index I posted, it shows how the glycemic content varies from country to country. Even our Coca-Cola is different from that of say, Australia. And, having drunk Australian Coca Cola, I can tell you it tastes NOTHING like American Coke. So, hardly an equal comparison "they eat rice and we eat rice, so it must be the same rice." NO. It's NOT. The Japanese, for example. consume iodine in doses not recommended for Americans. They can consume 12 grams, which is COMPLETELY not recommended for Americans. Why? Scientists don't know. The point is, other countries' food is not the same as ours. And neither is the ways it digests in their system, apparently.
Draw your own conclusions, if you wish.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

And neither is the ways it digests in their system, apparently.

no idea got mutli quote right 29 bellamo ans 30 mcbrion is wanna note
why a folkees international travel no can eat woteva like is easy find internet
"or ask a millions folkeess wot end up guts on operation taullls or ans so on world around you fa eons info"
ya guts a magic place fa lot a tings

£ happie discova £

ans Pizza yum

 

[mcbrion]

^^^

I'll have my translator check out that response. I should get an answer in, oh...10 years. Thanks! I think...

 

[belamyi]

^ It seems SLOPS was basically agreeing with you and me, and also added a comment about there being lots of different sorts of food everywhore, which are good for everyone.

 

[Dominus]

Asian rice is not stripped of its nutrients, the way our rice (sold in America) is. There is Basmati rice, with a very low glycemic index. I assume the Chinese are not paying $6 for 12 ounces of 'low glycemic rice' the way we are.
Comparing what other countries eat to what the US citizens eat is not a great way to compare. I've tasted Asian rice: it bears little resemblance to Uncle Ben's. Likewise, other products that WE eat is not the same as what THEY eat. If you look at the Mendoza glycemic index I posted, it shows how the glycemic content varies from country to country. Even our Coca-Cola is different from that of say, Australia. And, having drunk Australian Coca Cola, I can tell you it tastes NOTHING like American Coke. So, hardly an equal comparison "they eat rice and we eat rice, so it must be the same rice." NO. It's NOT. The Japanese, for example. consume iodine in doses not recommended for Americans. They can consume 12 grams, which is COMPLETELY not recommended for Americans. Why? Scientists don't know. The point is, other countries' food is not the same as ours. And neither is the ways it digests in their system, apparently.
Draw your own conclusions, if you wish.

Then go to Asian markets and get one of those big bags of rice imported from China.

I don't doubt that foods are different in different places. But to say that potatos make you fat is simply not true. I have been eating 20 pounds of potato each week. Plenty of people do that. We don't fry them of fill them up with butter.

The main point I'm trying to make is it is not these starchy foods or carbs that make people fat and sickly. It is how they are prepared. Baked potato is one of the healthiest things you can eat. Baked potato filled up with butter and all the other crap people generally put in their potato is one of the worst things you can eat.

Going back to one of the original reasons why we got into this discussion. Poor people are fat and sickly because you claim they don't have access to healthy but expensive foods. I can buy a 10 pound bag of potatos for $5 at walmart. You then claim that potatos make people fat and sickly. Yes, it does make people fat and sickly if they eat them as French fries, potato chips, etc. Just boil them, bake them, or even microwave them. They are extremely filling and they contain a lot of energy.

I eat 20 pounds of potato each week and I don't even feel sleepy during the afternoon like most people. Midday slump thats what it's called I think.

The point is to encourage people to stop feeding themselves and their kids processed stuff loaded with SOS. They don't even need to spend a ton of money on good healthy foods.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

^ It seems SLOPS was basically agreeing with you and me, and also added a comment about there being lots of different sorts of food everywhore, which are good for everyone.

yea sanks > And neither is the ways it digests in their system
othda bit is where a human a grow up and eat and digestions systems and wot go on gut so a big thang
" so call modern 1st world countrys no figa stills "
it all on internet fa fingas ta discova
!humans a lazy best tey learn by find out no feed it ums or WHO learn obvious way past time!
1body is not all body so no 1 answer is ya got do da foot work

anyway

has fun discova organics

tinku

 

[belamyi]

Both aristo and SLOPS are hitting the same question: they take for granted that most people get told, what way or the other, what to eat, just like they get told what do think or what to do with their lives.
Compounded with that, the fact that people are lazy enough to find it easier to complain and believe that they are overcrowded enough in their lives, to start caring about what to eat, what to think, what to do with their lives... which, you know, are the sort of things that only rich, idle people get bothered with as soon as they stop being kids, biologically or socially.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Both aristo and SLOPS are hitting the same question: they take for granted that most people get told, what way or the other, what to eat, just like they get told what do think or what to do with their lives.
Compounded with that, the fact that people are lazy enough to find it easier to complain and believe that they are overcrowded enough in their lives, to start caring about what to eat, what to think, what to do with their lives... which, you know, are the sort of things that only rich, idle people get bothered with as soon as they stop being kids, biologically or socially.

ya gon sideways and assume a much a othda is all out there so
"not a worreys"
anyway

Hope dude what needs it get figa easy ans so on

Adieu

 

[belamyi]

^ I was merely pointing out the obviety that, if people find it hard to know what is good for them in general, it is no different in relation to food in particular.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Dominus]

Both aristo and SLOPS are hitting the same question: they take for granted that most people get told, what way or the other, what to eat, just like they get told what do think or what to do with their lives.
Compounded with that, the fact that people are lazy enough to find it easier to complain and believe that they are overcrowded enough in their lives, to start caring about what to eat, what to think, what to do with their lives... which, you know, are the sort of things that only rich, idle people get bothered with as soon as they stop being kids, biologically or socially.

Huh? I'm sorry I have no idea what you just said.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

^ I was merely pointing out the obviety that, if people find it hard to know what is good for them in general, it is no different in relation to food in particular.

- - - Updated - - -

yea us nose y varty sweet ta do it
how a says - info less is mores anstoo many dishes make s brain chokes up ans best serve ons own or mess up palate ans folkees no idea wot ya cookin
" it way multibusiness ans so on ectera world ova lur doins cause " < like dat anda topic thang
"bad companiees slap bottys"
ans medical professions a slap bottys
ans so on
anyway alway a pleasure on wit da feast
" VOOMS"
me told ya
"is a noseee"
cuddulls - face dat way