RoR: Forum

Ed,

You post all these studies to "prove" that I should go off my high-carb diet, when it was the high-carb diet that dramatically improved my lipid profile, my blood pressure and my cardiovascular risk factors. What am I supposed to believe? All those references you keep citing, or my own real-life experience?

I knew a woman who was diabetic and on insulin. I convinced to go on the high-carb Pritikin diet, and guess what? She no longer requires insulin. Her doctor was amazed at her improvement. Why would a high-carb diet help a diabetic in such a profound way? After all, wouldn't it raise her blood sugar? The answer is that a high-carb, low-fat diet reduces insulin resistance, which is why she was able to go off the insulin. Her own insulin was now able to handle the sugar.

Of course, you'll say that my case and hers are anomalies, right?

(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/08, 9:32pm)

Post 21

Monday, August 9, 2010 - 4:17am

William, I sanctioned Laure in 12. Me, I look at the teeth. We have incisors and molars. We are omnivores. Ed's statistical studies are just that: statistical. They are not individual work-ups. Myself, I always get copies of all the tests and stuff and I have a fat folder of EKGs, bloodwork, even dental x-rays.

There was one time, for a couple of years, working at Kawasaki Robotics, I was amazed at the low blood pressure of the Japanese. There's a lot to be said for the diet, generally. One of the other American trainers was pretty thin, hated fatty foods, big on salads and lean meat. We hosted our client learners for lunch every day. These were mostly UAW guys, and that was fine with our boss who relished the meat and potatoes diet. He was short, stocky, with a round belly. Ate two servings of lunch all the time. Well, the HR department scheduled cholesterol tests for us. You guessed it. Bruce and I were royally pissed off.

If people were not individuals, so much more about us would be predictable enough to make socialism work.

Post 22

Monday, August 9, 2010 - 11:37am

Bill,

Of course, you'll say that my case and hers are anomalies, right?

No, your diet is pretty harsh and bland. If you eat that way, it'll improve your health somewhat. Do you remember when I said that even my health would improve if I followed the strict, draconian Pritikin Diet? It was a couple of posts ago.

But just because something works, doesn't mean it's a good choice among alternatives. If someone is following too close behind you in a car -- and you want them to back off -- one of the choices available to you is to slam on your brakes, forcing them to ram into the back of your car.

Like the Pritikin diet, it almost always "works" -- but it isn't always the best choice of those available.

Ed

Post 23

Monday, August 9, 2010 - 5:45pm

Ed,

It's not draconian at all. I've followed it for over 25 years. Lots of tasty carbs -- yum!

For breakfast, I had steel-cut oats, a pear and a protein shake. If you've never tried steel-cut oats, you don't know what you're missing. Much better than rolled oats. They're so tasty, I eat them without milk, fruit or sugar. In fact, milk, fruit or sugar spoils the taste. Unlike rolled oats, steel-cut are best eaten plain.

For lunch today I had a delicious okra soup with carrots, tomatoes squash and string beans. Wow, was it good! And for desert, a big, juicy plum. Nectar of the gods!

Last night, I had whole-wheat spaghetti in a spicy marinara sauce with ground turkey (99% fat-free), and some beet greens. For desert, I had some fresh strawberries and a ripe peach.

You'd love this diet!

Post 24

Monday, August 9, 2010 - 8:01pm

Yep, I think the paleo diet would be Draconian for me. The lucky among us crave the diet that's best for us. I'm not sure which diet is best for me; I'm on the high-fat, high-carb diet. May take 10 years off my life, but it'll be worth it. ;-)

Post 25

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 12:06am

Yep, I think the paleo diet would be Draconian for me.

I tried the Atkins diet when I was much younger, because my girl friend went on it, and I wanted to see what it was like. God, it was awful -- all that meat and fat and very few carbs. I had a headache, was constipated and had absolutely no energy during the entire week that I was on it. I lost 7 pounds and was miserable the entire time. I was so happy to go back on the carbs.

The lucky among us crave the diet that's best for us. I'm not sure which diet is best for me; I'm on the high-fat, high-carb diet. May take 10 years off my life, but it'll be worth it. ;-)

People always say that, but what they overlook is what their life will be like when they become ill with heart disease, diabetes or cancer. You don't just live it up and then die. You can suffer a great deal when you become ill. Your quality of life is affected, not just the length of your life.

Post 26

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 4:50am

Bill:

You don't just live it up and then die. You can suffer a great deal when you become ill. Your quality of life is affected, not just the length of your life.

I second that. It's not worth it to eat unhealthy like that. Not only is it not worth it because of the all the illnesses you get, but getting yourself fitter (which requires healthy eating and exercise) also gives you a great boost of self-esteem. When I was fat I was miserable. A few years ago I felt lethargic all the time and I hated my appearance. I'm only 35 and people who haven't seen me in a few years since I lost my weight tell me I look like I'm 10 years younger.

Post 27

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 12:02pm

Bill,

Yep, I think the paleo diet would be Draconian for me.
I tried the Atkins diet when I was much younger, because my girl friend went on it, and I wanted to see what it was like. God, it was awful -- all that meat and fat and very few carbs. I had a headache, was constipated and had absolutely no energy during the entire week that I was on it. I lost 7 pounds and was miserable the entire time.

Don't confuse the Atkins Diet -- especially the unpolished one from your era -- with the paleo diet (there were many, and still are some, important differences).

Your headache and low energy for the week are the effects of the physiological switch over to ketosis, which takes about 8 days in humans. After 8 -10 days, your body more-fully adjusts to ketosis and you can burn ketones in the absence of all that carbohydrate burning which had been usual for you. Atkins purposely has two-weeks of intense carb-avoidance in order to work along with this physiological adapation period.

Your constipation likely stemmed from being on such an outdated version of Atkins. I'm willing to bet you that -- while you were on Atkins -- that you did not consume at least twice as much fruits and vegetables (by weight) as you did of meat. This'd make a diet more 'paleo-friendly'. Another way to say paleo-friendly is 'gene-friendly'. Still another way to say it is: "human body" friendly.

Ed

Post 28

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 1:17pm

Laure Chipman said: " I'm on the high-fat, high-carb diet. May take 10 years off my life, but it'll be worth it. ;-)"

Fair, female, and forty. Of course you eat fats and carbs.

Ed Thompson opined: Don't confuse the Atkins Diet -- especially the unpolished one from your era -- with the paleo diet ... likely stemmed from being on such an outdated version of Atkins.... paleo-friendly is 'gene-friendly'. Still another way to say it is: "human body" friendly.

See, one of my criminology instructors was the the local PD polygraph examiner. One of the younger people in the class tried to baloney his way out of not having the final paper ready to turn in -- must be computer error -- and I was reminded of one of Isaac Asimov's "Black Widower" murder mysteries. When the story keeps changing to meet new factual challenges, you have a basic problem. Perhaps this is the diet followed by my wife, Morgan Fairchild.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/10, 1:31pm)

Post 29

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 2:32pm

"Fair, female, and forty. Of course you eat fats and carbs."

I'll be 49 (for the first time!) on Saturday. But, why the "Of course"?

William, interesting that you lost 7 lbs. in a week on Atkins. Might almost be worth it - except... did your weight go back up when you stopped the Atkins diet?

Ed, I thought the Paleo diet was nuthin' but meat. Can you give a quick definition of Atkins vs. Paleo (for those of us who have not been following along so closely)?

Post 30

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 3:29pm

Paleo diet is any food a paleolithic human would have had access to. Meat being one, fruits and vegetables and legumes being another.

Post 31

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 3:52pm

Mike,

Ed Thompson opined: Don't confuse the Atkins Diet -- especially the unpolished one from your era -- with the paleo diet ... likely stemmed from being on such an outdated version of Atkins.... paleo-friendly is 'gene-friendly'. Still another way to say it is: "human body" friendly.
See, one of my criminology instructors was the the local PD polygraph examiner. One of the younger people in the class tried to baloney his way out of not having the final paper ready to turn in -- must be computer error -- and I was reminded of one of Isaac Asimov's "Black Widower" murder mysteries. When the story keeps changing to meet new factual challenges, you have a basic problem.

What has changed and who changed it?

Ed

Post 32

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 4:34pm

Laure,

Can you give a quick definition of Atkins vs. Paleo (for those of us who have not been following along so closely)?

Sure. The whole theory of Atkins is carb-driven. The primary point is to control the number of carbohydrates eaten in order to control weight and be healthy. Different levels exist. Some folks may follow Atkins by limiting carbs to 30 grams a day. Others, because of being muscled or active or whatever, maintain their weight on higher levels of carbs, such as 60 grams a day. Beyond the carb-limit, it's open-season on foods. You eat what you want if you can do it without breaking your carb-limit.

Later on, Atkins wrote about how certain foods are healthy and shouldn't be avoided altogether. Two examples would be berries and fish. So Atkins started saying that more than just your carb-limit matters -- and that a 'true' Atkins diet ought to include anti-oxidant polyphenols (from berries, etc) and omega-3 fatty acids (from fish). He said other things, too, but these two examples ought to suffice.

A paleolithic diet is not necessarily carb-driven. Instead, the types of foods are important. There are about 10 broad kinds of food you can eat. More attention is paid to the type or kind of food, less attention is paid to the specific amount you may crave and devour. Here is a list of paleo foods, I got it from http://www.thepaleodiet.com/paleolithic-diet.htm [added notes mine]:

� Plants [spinach, asparagus, etc]
� Roots and tubers [yams, sweet potatoes, etc]
� Berries
� Fruits
� Nuts
�Wild terrestrial animals [buffalo, venison, etc]
� Fowl [chicken, turkey, etc]
� Insects [eeeyooo! ... these are not required!]
� Fish and seafood
� Eggs

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/10, 4:36pm)

Post 33

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 5:07pm

Laure wrote,

William, interesting that you lost 7 lbs. in a week on Atkins. Might almost be worth it - except... did your weight go back up when you stopped the Atkins diet?

Yes, but I didn't need and didn't want to lose the weight, so gaining it back was fine with me. Btw, my girlfriend lost only 4 pounds. I think that within the first week, a lot of that is water loss anyway.

I also lost quite a bit of weight when I started on the Pritikin diet, and actually became too thin, but I've since gained some of it back.

Post 34

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 5:12pm

You post all these studies to "prove" that I should go off my high-carb diet

Not really getting into the premise of this thread. Eat whatever you want to eat -- there's no right or wrong, you like what you like, unless it's making you unhappy because you want to be thinner or whatnot.

Post 35

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 5:21pm

Eating whatever I wanted was the problem. It certainly gave me short-term satisfaction but it wreaked havoc on my overall energy levels and self-esteem and would undoubtedly have given me serious illnesses down the road, long term consequences of which I did not want. Eating all that unhealthy food also makes you constantly crave it. When you start to eat healthier those cravings slowly subside. I doubt anyone is really happy eating unhealthy all the time. If so they're trading off satisfying a temporary hedonistic desire for a more fulfilling life. That's not say I don't occasionally indulge in a cheat meal, I do about once a week and it generally isn't enough to wreak all that much havoc on your health.

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/10, 5:22pm)

Post 36

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 5:41pm

"Take what you want...and pay for it."

Post 37

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 7:56pm

ET: Two examples would be berries and fish.

Now, you are tempting me... I could live on fish and berries... I could cook fish in berry sauce or berries in fish sauce... make berry dip for my fish... or fish dip for my berries...

See, the problem with the Paleo diet theory is assuming that all humans today had the same ancestors 10,000 years ago -- and that nothing inbetween affected survival. As I pointed out before, you have no idea where my ancestors came from. For half of them, fish was a rare delicacy and the sea was something other people told them about. For the other half, the sea was home and fish was food by definition.

How do you and your pal Dr. Atkins know which of my alleles are responding to which of the foods you are offering them. I mean, where do horse blood and fermented mare's milk fit in?

Post 38

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - 9:04am

Joe Maurone quoted Ayn Rand quoting an old Spanish proverb:

"Take what you want...and pay for it."

It's too expensive! ;-)

Moreover, how does this proverb comport with the Objectivist ethics and with Rand's admonition against hedonistic whim worshipping? Sounds pretty subjective to me. What about a person who continues to smoke against his doctor's advice, saying that's willing to pay the consequences, from heart disease to cancer?

According to Rand, "The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. . . . It is not a license "to do as he pleases . . ."

Post 39

Wednesday, August 11, 2010 - 9:34am