las

Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin (it's evolutionary baybeee!)

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

The BE&HM Series ~ Part IV: Ionic Compounds, Elements & Oxidation State Defined

In the last post, I discussed the Group A, aka the Main Group, elements.  The chemical behavior of atoms  -- how they react/combine with other atoms in "the environment" -- is determined by the way electrons are configured orbiting about the nucleus.  All Main Group elements (with the biochemically relevant exception of hydrogen) share a valence shell (outermost shell) with 8 "vacancies" for electrons.  Having a filled valence shell with 8 electrons is the preferred energy state for these atoms -- this is called the Octet Rule -- and these atoms react/combine in order to satisfy this rule.  The atoms in each group (or column) contain the number of electrons in the group number, thus Na is in Group IA has 1e, C in Group IV has 4 e's, and Br in Group VII has 7 e's.

The Group IA and IIA elements lose electrons to form cations to meet the Octet Rule when the next lower filled shell now becomes the valence shell.  The Group VIA and VIIA elements have mostly filled shells and will gain electrons to completely fill them.

In this installment I'll discuss how different atoms combine to form unique substances called compounds.   One type of compound, ionic, will be discussed in detail, and the formation of an ionic compound shall be used to introduce the concept of oxidation state.


Elements & Compounds

Element:  A substance consisting of only one atom.  Several elements form molecules* composed of two atoms as their most stable state in nature.  These are  H, O, N and all Group VIIA elements.  

Compound:  Two or more different atoms "bonded" in fixed proportions and the same geometric arrangement. In this series, I'll discuss two types of compounds:
  • Ionic compounds
  • Covalent compounds
These two types of compounds are distinguished by the nature of the bonds holding the atoms together.  Covalent compounds are by far the most prevalent in biochemistry and these compounds exist as distinct particles we call molecules.  [*The elements that form molecules are not considered compounds because the atoms are the same.  These all form molecules of two atoms, called diatomic molecules.]   I'll devote several posts to the discussion of covalent compounds.  This post will focus on compounds formed when ions combine.

Review on Ions
  • Atoms that easily form ions have either mostly empty or mostly full outer valence shells
  • Atoms that lose one or more electrons are positively charged ions called cations
  • Atoms that gain one or more electrons are negatively charged ions called anions
  • Group IA lose 1e to become +1 cations; Group IIA lose 2e's to become +2 cations
  • Group VIIA gain 1e to become -1 anions; Group VIA gain 2e's to become -2 anions
  • All of these ions are called monatomic ions as they are formed from a single parent atom

A few new things:
  • All metals -- left hand side (all the way across to that "staircase") of the periodic table including Group A & B elements -- have a tendency to form cations.  They may not form them or be very resistant to forming them, but they do not form anions.
  • Non-metals -- upper right side of the periodic table excluding Group VIIIA -- form anions, and this is mostly from Group VIIA in biological contexts.
  • Non-metals also form covalent compounds (next installment) and the biologically relevant N, P, O, and S atoms tend to bond in this fashion in biological molecules.
  • Non-metals combine to form compounds that can be charged, called polyatomic ions.  You may recognize some of these such as hydroxide (OH-), sulfate (SO4-2) and phosphate (PO4-3).   I'll discuss these ions subsequent to the discussion of covalent bonding.

    Ionic Bonds
Ionic bonding involves the transfer of electrons.  Electrons do not exist in stable form floating out there in a vacuum -- they like to be associated with atoms, or more specifically with the protons in the nuclei of atoms where their negative charges are balanced out by the positively charged protons.  Electrical neutrality is a preferred state of matter.  Let's begin by looking at the classic ionic compound everyone is familiar with, sodium chloride, NaCl, aka salt! 

Sodium in Group IA has a single valence electron that is highly vulnerable to being knocked off.  If all I have is pure sodium, those electrons have a high propensity to want to fly off, but nowhere to go.  This is why pure sodium is so highly reactive.   Chlorine is Group VIIA meaning it has one vacancy to fill to satisfy the Octet Rule.  In the diagram below we see the parent atoms with their electron configurations.  The lone electron in the M shell of Na finds a happy home in the Cl atom, Na loses an electron becoming  Na+ and Cl gains an electron becoming Cl- .  These oppositely charged ions are attracted to one another like the opposite poles of two bar magnets are attracted to one another -- the ions then stick to one another just like the bar magnets would.

So an ionic bond is the electrostatic force between oppositely charged ions

Ionic Compounds
A compound composed of one or more type of cation and one or more type of anion held together by electrostatic forces.
Some important things about ions and ionic compounds:
  • The formation of an ionic bond involves the TRANSFER of electrons from the cation parent atom to the anion parent atom. 
  • An ionic compound requires at least one cation and one anion
  • Metals form cations and non-metals form anions, so an ionic compound must contain at least one of each type of atom, metal and non-metal.
  • Once this transfer occurs, the cations and anions are the more stable entities -- the cations don't want their electrons back, and the anions aren't giving back the electrons that made them "complete". Further electron movement between established I,II,VI and VIIA ions is not energetically favored.
  • The electrostatic forces, ionic bonds, are relatively strong and most ionic compounds are solids at room temperature and have very very high melting points.
  • The driving force in forming ionic compounds is to form a neutral substance, therefore cations and anions will combine in proportions so that the substance has a net charge of zero.
  • There is no distinct "ionic molecule" -- ionic compounds exist as crystals that are formed depending on relative ionic sizes and proportions into different conficurations.
  • The "unit" to describe an ionic compound is called the empirical formula and represents the lowest whole number proportions of ions that result in a neutral substance.
  • An ionic compound is made up of charged particles, but overall is not a charged substance
So, sodium chloride is NaCl, a neutral compound with the crystal structure shown in the diagram above right.  No subscripts imply a 1:1 ratio which is to be predicted because Na loses 1 electron and Cl gains 1 electron, and +1 + (-1) = 0.   All IA and VIIA atoms (H excluded) can form ionic compounds at 1:1 ratios.   Now magnesium, Mg, is IIA so it forms +2 ions.  If it forms a compound with bromine, Br, it will form MgBr2 because each VIIA bromine can take one electron:  +2 + 2(-1) = 0.  But Mg will form 1:1 ionic compounds with VIA, for example magnesium oxide MgO. 



Oxidation & Reduction, Redox Reactions & Oxidation State

As mentioned previously, the formation of an ion from its parent atom involves losing or gaining electrons.   
  • Oxidation is defined as the loss of electrons
  • Reduction (the opposite of oxidation) involves gaining electrons
My students taught me this memory tool:  LEO goes GER  I'm not a big fan, but LEO is a lion that roars, GER, and it seems to help many of them.  LEO = Lose Electrons Oxidation, GER = Gain Electrons Reduction.   We can neither create nor destroy electrons, so:
For oxidation of one atom to occur, reduction must occur in another -- while we often focus on one or the other phenomenon, this must always hold.  
The oxidation state of an atom is a number that indicates the number of electrons associated with the atoms in excess or deficit of the atomic number.  It is sometimes called the oxidation number.  Recall the atomic number is the number of positively charged protons in an atom and also the number of negatively charged electrons in the neutral atom.   Some rules for determining oxidation state in atoms and ions:
  • All pure elements have an oxidation state of zero, 0.  This includes pure elements that form diatomic molecules.  
  • All monatomic ions have oxidation states equal to the charge on the ion.  For example, Na+ has an oxidation state of +1 and Cl- has an oxidation state of -1.
  • For ions, a positive oxidation state signifies a relinquishing of ownership of the electrons, a negative oxidation state signifies ownership of extra electrons.
  • All group IA, IIA, VIA and VIIA elements will have the oxidation states of their ions when in ionic compounds.
  • The Transition or Group B metals generally have more varied oxidation states depending on the compound in which they are a part.
Let's look at the reaction for the formation of sodium chloride from sodium and chlorine.  The YouTube video below is one of these "don't try this at home" things, but it demonstrates both the reactivity of sodium and its reaction with chlorine gas.  I'm not sure what he mixes in that cylinder to create the chlorine gas (a common one is calcium hypochlorite and hydrochloric acid) but he ignites the sodium to initiate the reaction when the sodium is brought into contact with the chlorine.  Unfortunately he doesn't clearly show the product, which is salt, NaCl.




The chemical reaction is shown at right.  This balanced stoichiometrically so that we see that we need 2 moles of sodium metal to react with each mole of the diatomic chlorine gas to form 2 moles of sodium chloride.  This reaction is a redox couple that can be broken down into half reactions as shown.  The electrons produced in the oxidation half reaction are consumed in the reduction half reaction.  Therefore, the reaction is also balanced in terms of the number of electrons.  Looking back to the original equation, on the left, the pure elements Na and Cl have oxidation states of zero, 0.  On the right the product is an ionic compound and we assign the oxidation states as the charges on the ions.  Therefore:

Oxidation = loss of electrons →  increase in oxidation state or oxidation number
Reduction = gain in electrons → decrease in oxidation state or oxidation number

A note about the Group B, Transition Metals that form cations using iron, Fe as an example.  Iron, like most transition metals, can form multiple stable ions.  The two most common are the ferrous ion, Fe+2, and the ferric ion, Fe+3.   Some possible oxidation reactions for iron are:  

Fe → Fe+2 + 2e   ,    Fe → Fe+3 + 3e     ,     Fe+2 → Fe+3 + e    

Some possible reduction reactions involving iron are the reverse:

Fe+2 + 2e → Fe    ,    Fe+3 + 3e → Fe    ,     Fe+3 + e → Fe+2 

Therefore, Fe+2 can be either an oxidized form of iron if formed from Fe, or a reduced form of iron if formed from Fe+3 .   Some final notes on the generalizations I've made in this post.  
  • While metals generally form cations, some are capable of having negative oxidation states
  • Hydrogen has been excepted from all generalizations of Group IA as it is classed as a non-metal and is a small atom desiring a filled shell with 2e's.  Hydrogen will be discussed separately
  • I have only discussed the behavior of the non-metals and oxidation states when part of ionic compounds.  I'll discuss them as part of covalent compounds if and when it is relevant.
  • If you're interested, a listing of possible oxidation states for the elements can be found here.  The generalizations I've made explain apparent conflicts ... e.g. Cl has an oxidation state of -1 in ionic compounds.  I'll address the positive oxidation states if they are ever relevant to a biological molecule.


Next up, Covalent Bonding

17 comments:

bentleyj74 said...

Yay, bio/chem review...betcha this one gets less replies though. Quick say something incendiary! Did I miss hydrogen bonding? Was I absent that week ;)

Lowcarb team member said...

Hi Evelyn 

First, please accept my apology for posting in an off topic thread. Maybe you can re-position my post to a more appropriate thread. I see you say in your blog “Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb insanity!” I am a type two diabetic lowcarber. Diagnosed with an HbA1c of close to twelve. Within three months of diagnosis I reduced BG numbers to non diabetic. I have held these number for over four years, with minimal meds (a couple of metformin pills per day). By lowcarbing I reduced my weight by around fifty pounds, waist from 40” to 32”. Lipids vastly improved. HDL up, LDL reduced, and trigs less than 1. My healthcare team are amazed at my progress.

I have asked many times, how do I hold my non diabetic HbA1c numbers other than lowcarb, I have never received an answer. As you state “Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb insanity!” please can you inform me how I can give up lowcarbing and maintain my BG control, safe stable weight and excellent lipid numbers, without increasing my medication. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

Eddie Mitchell

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

This might be better addressed on the discussion boards? If you want I can C&P for you when I get a chance and post a link. Otherwise if you do, I should get email notice of a new post there. I have no way of moving comments on this platform. Welcome! And please let me know :)

Lowcarb team member said...

Please feel free to copy and paste as you feel appropriate. Please email me at lowcarbdiabetic@aol.com when you have answered my post. Thank you.

Regards Eddie Mitchell

bentleyj74 said...

Not Evelyn but there are several interesting [to me anyway :)] points you mention in your post.

1: You lost very significant amounts of weight. It is possible that this all by itself improved your health markers.

2: You said type 2 rather than type 1 or MODY/LADY/1.5 type autoimmune beta cell/insuin deficiency.

3: The refuge in context is from low carb woo aka staments that have no basis in medical fact and in most cases are in refuted by evidence from clinical trials...NOT a war on lower carb if it's working for you. Your weight is down, your numbers look good to your medical team. This is very different from a scenario in which a person GAINS 50 pounds and LOSES functional insulin sensitivity eating low carb and relies on butter to save them via it's magical properties and health benefits. Carbs per say do not *cause* insulin resistance in fact they are generally insulin sensitizing whereas fats and specifically saturated fats are strongly associated with insulin resistance. Over nutrition is also strongly associated with insulin resistance.

4: If low carb is working for you and you are satisfied why would you want to give it up?

5: My personal bent towards low carb is in agreement with Stephen Guyenet that LC is one way to lower overall food reward and re-establish normalized appetite. One of the reasons I bring that up is that if indeed food reward was behind the over nutrition you have greater options for variability which makes it easier to be mineral/nutrient sufficient as well as just more flexible overall.

I swing the other way a little bit, fats slide under my radar pretty easily and I do tend to eat more total calories with higher reward foods like pizza and nachos [or even eggs and cheese] than I do potatoes and oatmeal . A person seeking satiety knows what works for them and what doesn't. This doesn't mean that I never ever eat eggs and cheese or even pizza and nachos, but it means I know how to structure my day to day diet to work for me and not against me.

Evelyn herself lost around 100 pounds using low carb and continues to be moderately low carb but from a pragmatic perspective rather than a religious one.

There are people here whose dietary preferences range from very low carb to very low fat and all points in between. The shared interest is in good conversation and distinguishing fact from fiction.

Lowcarb team member said...

“1: You lost very significant amounts of weight. It is possible that this all by itself improved your health markers.”

I am sure going from obese to a so called healthy BMI done wonders for my general health. I believe it also played a part in my typical type diabetic insulin resistance reduction.

“2: You said type 2 rather than type 1 or MODY/LADY/1.5 type autoimmune beta cell/insuin deficiency.”

Correct, I am a type two diabetic.

“3: The refuge in context is from low carb woo aka staments that have no basis in medical fact and in most cases are in refuted by evidence from clinical trials...NOT a war on lower carb if it's working for you. Your weight is down, your numbers look good to your medical team. This is very different from a scenario in which a person GAINS 50 pounds and LOSES functional insulin sensitivity eating low carb and relies on butter to save them via it's magical properties and health benefits. Carbs per say do not *cause* insulin resistance in fact they are generally insulin sensitizing whereas fats and specifically saturated fats are strongly associated with insulin resistance. Over nutrition is also strongly associated with insulin resistance.”

I personally know many lowcarb type two diabetics who have lost weight, hold non diabetic BG numbers and use minimal or no meds. In all cases lipids have improved. All most all have reduced trigs to less than one.

“4: If low carb is working for you and you are satisfied why would you want to give it up?”

I have no wish to change my present regime. However as the blog states “Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb insanity!” it perhaps implies there is an alternative for people like me.


“5: My personal bent towards low carb is in agreement with Stephen Guyenet that LC is one way to lower overall food reward and re-establish normalized appetite. One of the reasons I bring that up is that if indeed food reward was behind the over nutrition you have greater options for variability which makes it easier to be mineral/nutrient sufficient as well as just more flexible overall.

I have no knowledge of Stephen Guyenet.”

"I swing the other way a little bit, fats slide under my radar pretty easily and I do tend to eat more total calories with higher reward foods like pizza and nachos [or even eggs and cheese] than I do potatoes and oatmeal . A person seeking satiety knows what works for them and what doesn't. This doesn't mean that I never ever eat eggs and cheese or even pizza and nachos, but it means I know how to structure my day to day diet to work for me and not against me"

Foods such a pizza take my BG numbers to non diabetic and to dangerous numbers within an hour. My typical carb intake is between thirty and fifty carbs per day. On this level I hold HbA1c in the fives. Are you a type two non insulin using type two diabetic ?

“Evelyn herself lost around 100 pounds using low carb and continues to be moderately low carb but from a pragmatic perspective rather than a religious one.”

If Evelyn lost 100 pounds lowcarbing and continues to moderately follows a lowcarb diet, why does she feel lowcarbing is some sort of insanity ?

"There are people here whose dietary preferences range from very low carb to very low fat and all points in between. The shared interest is in good conversation and distinguishing fact from fiction"

Agree 100% It's the "Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb insanity!" that I cannot understand.

Eddie

bentleyj74 said...

"If Evelyn lost 100 pounds lowcarbing and continues to moderately follows a lowcarb diet, why does she feel lowcarbing is some sort of insanity ?"

If you read her articles you'll see that she doesn't....at which point you may lose all interest :) It's the insanity that permeates ALL forms of dietary dogma/belief that people seek refuge from by investigating the actual facts/data/clinical studies rather than accept the claims of gurus without applying critical thinking and requiring evidence rather than anecdote although this particular site was named when she was becoming aware of it from the perspective of a low carber.


"Foods such a pizza take my BG numbers to non diabetic and to dangerous numbers within an hour. My typical carb intake is between thirty and fifty carbs per day. On this level I hold HbA1c in the fives. Are you a type two non insulin using type two diabetic ?"

No, I didn't come to low carb as a person seeking relief from weight problems or health problems...it was the generalized fear of carbs as inherently problem causing that got me involved although I did get sick FROM it. I don't personally do any sort of carb or fat gram counting or even calorie counting, my health concerns resolved when I returned to my normalized patterns of eating.

Lowcarb team member said...

“It's the insanity that permeates ALL forms of dietary dogma/belief that people seek refuge from by investigating the actual facts/data/clinical studies rather than accept the claims of gurus without applying critical thinking”

I accepted claims made by several Gurus, Dr. Richard Bernstein, Gary Taubes, Jimmy Moore and others. I did not at the time spend much time on critical thinking. By reducing the level of carbs in my diet, from the recommended by the UK National Health Service, the largest UK diabetes charity DUK and the ADA, my blood glucose levels went from highly dangerous, almost guaranteed to lead to severe diabetic complications, to non diabetic in five days. I say this not by way of self-aggrandisement because almost any type two diabetic can achieve the same results. I suspect hundreds of thousands, possibly millions have normalised blood glucose following a low carb diet.

Other than injected insulin, nothing comes close to normalising BG like a low carb diet. Many type two diabetics including me had double figure HbA1c numbers at diagnosis, in my case twelve. The best non insulin diabetes meds can achieve a reduction in at best two points. This is four points short of better than six to achieve safe BG numbers. The type two non insulin dependent diabetic has a choice to make. Does he settle for the life threatening HbA1c ten, does he go on insulin, does he try to achieve safe BG numbers with a type two multi med regime (proved to be highly dangerous in the ACCORD Trial) or does he change his diet ?

To my knowledge, there has never been a long term well controlled study/trial on the long term effects of a low carb diet. However, there have been countless peer revued papers and trials published, proving highly elevated BG numbers are highly dangerous whether a person is diabetic or not. Highly elevated BG effects every tissue in the body. Many type two diabetes drugs have been banned, or carry black box cancer warnings. For me the only “INSANITY” is using dangerous and often ineffective drugs, when a change in diet can achieve far more safely. For me “INSANITY” is using drugs to continue eating foods that lead to obesity, it’s often linked type two diabetes, highly elevated blood glucose numbers, and a myriad of serious and life threatening healthcare issues.

bentleyj74 said...

I also did not apply critical thinking and accepted the claims of gurus [without even checking their credentials if you can believe that!] and went from being a lean healthy person to a lean unhealthy person with several disturbing trends such as prediabetic/diabetic blood sugar levels during OGTT, upward trending blood pressure, development of beaus lines on all finger and toe nails, anemia [I know right? Good luck figuring that one out], marked hormonal dysregulation, and a few others. It's worth mentioning that during this period I was eating not only a low carb diet but a whole food low carb diet just loaded with fresh leafy greens and some meats and even the allotted berries. Result? Sick as a dog sufficient even to alarm my doctor who had initially supported the notion. So did I abandon it immediately and totally and kick the dust off of my proverbial heels? Nope, 'cause I still had the psychological conditioning that informed my BELIEF that carbs were bad/dangerous to my health all evidence to the contrary and those beliefs were getting in the way of the facts at hand.

In your post you have not yet addressed the 50 pound weight loss caused by decreased calorie intakes. You assert that you were eating in accordance with the guidelines given by medical professionals yet I'm hard pressed to find any such affirmation to the tune of "Just go ahead and habitually exceed your calorie needs while diabetic [or ever] by several thousand calories and call it compliance." More relevant imo is not *that* you stopped over eating which is obvious but why.

We have no way of knowing what your results would have been on the diet had your intakes been comparable, what we do know is that you find low carb easier to eat less on and that your health has not been poorly impacted by this...rather it has improved. If you were one of the examples of low carb success who actually isn't. One of the many who not only remained significantly obese but actually DEVELOPED health issues they did not previously have yet continue to believe and practice a religion of "low carb" as if they just need to find a way to get it "right" to find the magic...that'd be an example of low carb insanity. That was me, it's many many others as well.

Gary Taubes has a degree in journalism [he's promoted as a physicist....not true] which means he has less familiarity with biology than *I* do and if I had bothered to look his examples re the Pima...the facts actually do not at all support his claims.

Jimmy Moore has spent over a decade in a state of perpetual weight GAIN with deteriorating health and deteriorating glucose sensitivity *while eating the diet he promotes*. What would you say to him if he had those results and was a vegan instead? Would you think he should take a critical look at whether what he is doing is actually working for him or not...or have you believed a falsified hypothesis that INSISTS that carbs are *the* problem and low carb is *the* solution for absolutely everyone regardless of outcomes?

Dr Bernstein is himself a type 1 diabetic, I'm sure I don't need to outline all of the obvious ways this would be a game changer for low carb being considered therapeutic that do not apply to the gen pop and certainly not of they get negative results while doing it.

There are several Drs associated with low carb that have medically/factually inaccurate information in their published works. They have been addressed on this site. Do you not consider that relevant?

Lowcarb team member said...

To BentleyJ Part one.


“Result? Sick as a dog sufficient even to alarm my doctor who had initially supported the notion. So did I abandon it immediately and totally and kick the dust off of my proverbial heels? Nope, 'cause I still had the psychological conditioning that informed my BELIEF that carbs were bad/dangerous to my health all evidence to the contrary and those beliefs were getting in the way of the facts at hand”

I am sorry you became as “sick as a dog” and cannot comment on your “BELIEF that carbs were bad/dangerous” I do not believe all carbs are dangerous. I am sure you know that carbs are not essential, but few would want to live on a no carb diet. I use between 30 and 50 grams per day. That sort of carb intake from foods such as cabbage, brussel sprouts, swede, aubergine, cauliflower, cherry tomatoes, mushrooms, onions, garlic, asparagus, lettuce, avocado, courgettes, peppers, spinach, kale etc. together with a small amount of lowcarb fruits such as blue berries, strawberries and raspberries. I add fats such as butter, double cream and extra virgin olive oil and flax. Proteins such as meat, fish and eggs. This diet has controlled my type two diabetes, weight and lipids. I find it very easy to keep to, and if I was cured of type two diabetes tomorrow would probably keep to it most of the time.

“In your post you have not yet addressed the 50 pound weight loss caused by decreased calorie intakes. You assert that you were eating in accordance with the guidelines given by medical professionals yet I'm hard pressed to find any such affirmation to the tune of "Just go ahead and habitually exceed your calorie needs while diabetic [or ever] by several thousand calories and call it compliance." More relevant imo is not *that* you stopped over eating which is obvious but why”

Weight for me has never been an issue until diagnosis of type two diabetes. In the first instance I followed the diet as advised from healthcare professionals. Eat starchy carbs with every meal etc. This did not bring my blood glucose numbers to a safe place. I become a lowcarber to stabilise BG. The loss of weight was an added bonus for me. As time went on I realised excess weight in the form of body fat can cause insulin resistance. So lowcarb was a win win situation. After a period of my initial low carb diet, I realised I was loosing too much weight. I was looking skeletal. My first three months of lowcarbing was too low on calories, around thirteen hundred. With more fats I increased my daily calorie count to around 2500 in food, plus a bottle of my favourite red wine Rioja. Total calorie count around three thousand. Over four years on, and next to no weight gain, 32” waist, and no sign of scurvy, yellow jack or mange.

“We have no way of knowing what your results would have been on the diet had your intakes been comparable, what we do know is that you find low carb easier to eat less on and that your health has not been poorly impacted by this...rather it has improved. If you were one of the examples of low carb success who actually isn't. One of the many who not only remained significantly obese but actually DEVELOPED health issues they did not previously have yet continue to believe and practice a religion of "low carb" as if they just need to find a way to get it "right" to find the magic...that'd be an example of low carb insanity. That was me, it's many many others as well”

Sorry I do not understand some of the points raised in this paragraph ( If you were one of the examples of low carb success who actually isn't) etc. please break it down into individual questions, thank you.

Lowcarb team member said...

To BentleyJ Part Two

“Gary Taubes has a degree in journalism [he's promoted as a physicist....not true] which means he has less familiarity with biology than *I* do and if I had bothered to look his examples re the Pima...the facts actually do not at all support his claims.” 

Gary Taubes degree’s or lack of, or what he is promoted as, is of no interest to me. I find his books very interesting and good value for money. No one has to buy his books or follow his blog etc. I am guided by my weighing scales, BG meter, BP meter and the forty plus blood checks I have every three months.

“Jimmy Moore has spent over a decade in a state of perpetual weight GAIN with deteriorating health and deteriorating glucose sensitivity *while eating the diet he promotes*. What would you say to him if he had those results and was a vegan instead? Would you think he should take a critical look at whether what he is doing is actually working for him or not...or have you believed a falsified hypothesis that INSISTS that carbs are *the* problem and low carb is *the* solution for absolutely everyone regardless of outcomes?”

If Jimmy or anyone else had spent a decade, in perpetual weight gain, he must be some way north of around ten tons, but I will let that one go. If I met Jimmy I would shake his hand and give his lovely wife a kiss on the cheek, I luv em ! As with Taubes, no one is forced to read Jimmy’s blog or books, or buy the products on his site. For me Jimmy and Gary are great educators, they make me think and ask why ? Jimmy has helped me, and I am never going to kick a friend when he appears to be down at the moment.

“Dr Bernstein is himself a type 1 diabetic, I'm sure I don't need to outline all of the obvious ways this would be a game changer for low carb being considered therapeutic that do not apply to the gen pop and certainly not of they get negative results while doing it.”

It seems the “gen pop” are in all sorts of trouble with obesity and type two diabetes. I believe it as not as simple as how much they are eating, it is also a case of what they are eating.

“There are several Drs associated with low carb that have medically/factually inaccurate information in their published works. They have been addressed on this site. Do you not consider that relevant?”

It may well be relevant. But the vast majority of healthcare professionals are pushing a ludicrous diet to diabetics and non diabetics. They are also pushing statins and other useless drugs 24/7 to anyone that has a pulse. If you believe all that you hear, from all healthcare professionals, you may well end up feeling “as sick as a dog”

Kind regards Eddie Mitchell

bentleyj74 said...

Eddie,

From where I'm standing [and you may correct me if I'm mistaken] it looks to me like because low carb worked for you... you will accept anything and everything without scrutiny or requirement of a standard that comes from a low carb proponant. On the other hand anything that might even sound critical if you tilt your head and squint just right will be raked with a fine toothed comb. Which really makes you no different at all from Durian "kiss my taunt rippling butt cheeks" Rider aside from the fact that his blood glucose control on his vegan fruitarian diet is excellent.

A medical doctor publishing outright lies? Fine, if you believe everything you read that's your problem [which assumes that everyone has the bio/chem education to distinguish fact from fiction btw...could you?]

A 300+ pound obese man whose health declined on low carb? No problem, my waist is 32 inches and my blood sugars look good so he gets a pass no questions asked.

"It seems the “gen pop” are in all sorts of trouble with obesity and type two diabetes. I believe it as not as simple as how much they are eating, it is also a case of what they are eating."

Ok, defend that assertion with fact. The calorie intake of the gen pop has increased right alongside the rate of diseases associated with affluence. The twinkie diet researcher improved his metabolic markers across the board by simply decreasing his intakes. The potato guy improved not only his general health markers but specifically his insulin sensitivity eating virtually nothing but potatoes for 60 days. The crash diet combined with early metformin intervention reversed type 2 diabetes in a shocking number of test subjects and improved it in I believe all of them. Are you willing to hear facts when they clash with your beliefs?

"For me Jimmy and Gary are great educators, they make me think and ask why ? Jimmy has helped me, and I am never going to kick a friend when he appears to be down at the moment."

If Jimmy is your friend why is it OK for him to kill himself in front of your eyes with not so much as a word from you? He is taking the advice of Gary Taubes who is...again...a JOURNALIST whose published hypothesis has been falsified and whose examples actually contradict his assertions in obvious ways to anyone who cares to once again examine those pesky facts.

It really doesn't sound like you are currently much in the habit of asking why. You responded to my question of whether or not it was relevant that medical doctors are pushing medically/factually inaccurate information by saying it may well be relevant.

It *may* be? Like...maybe? Perhaps it's relevant? Yet you follow up by distinguishing them from OTHER doctors who take a different position by criticizing the OTHER doctors. Double standard much? Does this sound like the actions of a rational person or a conditioned one to you?

Lowcarb team member said...

“From where I'm standing [and you may correct me if I'm mistaken] it looks to me like because low carb worked for you... you will accept anything and everything without scrutiny or requirement of a standard that comes from a low carb proponant. On the other hand anything that might even sound critical if you tilt your head and squint just right will be raked with a fine toothed comb. Which really makes you no different at all from Durian "kiss my taunt rippling butt cheeks" Rider aside from the fact that his blood glucose control on his vegan fruitarian diet is excellent”

Please may I assure you, I have no knowledge of kissing butt cheeks, other than my beautiful Wife’s. Low carbing has worked well for me, and countless diabetics I personally know, and know of.

“A medical doctor publishing outright lies? Fine, if you believe everything you read that's your problem [which assumes that everyone has the bio/chem education to distinguish fact from fiction btw...could you?]”

On the contrary, I do not believe everything I hear from Doctors.

“A 300+ pound obese man whose health declined on low carb? No problem, my waist is 32 inches and my blood sugars look good so he gets a pass no questions asked”

I have yet to meet, or here off a 300lbs plus man with a waist of 32” but hey, who knows.

"It seems the “gen pop” are in all sorts of trouble with obesity and type two diabetes. I believe it as not as simple as how much they are eating, it is also a case of what they are eating."

“Ok, defend that assertion with fact. The calorie intake of the gen pop has increased right alongside the rate of diseases associated with affluence. The twinkie diet researcher improved his metabolic markers across the board by simply decreasing his intakes. The potato guy improved not only his general health markers but specifically his insulin sensitivity eating virtually nothing but potatoes for 60 days. The crash diet combined with early metformin intervention reversed type 2 diabetes in a shocking number of test subjects and improved it in I believe all of them. Are you willing to hear facts when they clash with your beliefs?”

My beliefs are not important, why should anyone believe me ? People should believe their own weighing scales, BG meters, and BP meters. If you feel good, and look good, you probably are good, this ain’t rocket science.

"For me Jimmy and Gary are great educators, they make me think and ask why ? Jimmy has helped me, and I am never going to kick a friend when he appears to be down at the moment."

“If Jimmy is your friend why is it OK for him to kill himself in front of your eyes with not so much as a word from you? He is taking the advice of Gary Taubes who is...again...a JOURNALIST whose published hypothesis has been falsified and whose examples actually contradict his assertions in obvious ways to anyone who cares to once again examine those pesky facts”

I reckon Jimmy has forgotten more about weight control than I will ever know. He doesn’t need me to put him straight.

“It really doesn't sound like you are currently much in the habit of asking why. You responded to my question of whether or not it was relevant that medical doctors are pushing medically/factually inaccurate information by saying it may well be relevant“

I am past the point and age of having to ask the question why too often, I know the answers for the control of my weight, BG and lipids.


“It *may* be? Like...maybe? Perhaps it's relevant? Yet you follow up by distinguishing them from OTHER doctors who take a different position by criticizing the OTHER doctors. Double standard much? Does this sound like the actions of a rational person or a conditioned one to you?”

“It *may* be? Like...maybe? Perhaps it's relevant?”

Please decipher, I am a man of extremely rudimentary education and you have left me confused.

Eddie

bentleyj74 said...

You are a man of self contradiction and facetious response to direct questions. That answers enough questions for me as to whether your inquiry was sincere and worth my time and consideration.

Lowcarb team member said...

"You are a man of self contradiction and facetious response to direct questions. That answers enough questions for me as to whether your inquiry was sincere and worth my time and consideration"

Sorry you feel this way, I done my best to answer your questions.

Eddie

bentleyj74 said...

"For me Jimmy and Gary are great educators, they make me think and ask why ?"

"I am past the point and age of having to ask the question why too often"

'nuff said.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Was too busy to get involved in this exchange. I thank you bentley for trying ... I wouldn't have the patience. Eddie, at this point I'll just leave this discussion here. If LC is working for you then I'm happy for you. You are managing your hyperglycemia well. Were it me, this would concern me: "Foods such a pizza take my BG numbers to non diabetic and to dangerous numbers within an hour. " So you are managing postprandial hyperglycemia, but are insulin resistant. Were it me, knowing what I've uncovered in terms of confirmed cases of reversal of diabetes -- as in restored glucose tolerance -- I'd like to try for that brass ring. If you consider Jimmy and Gary are great educators, then there's probably nothing for you here.

Post a Comment

Moderation is currently on. Thanks in advance for your patience.