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!)

Saturday, March 9, 2013

See you in Hotlanta!


Yes ... 



That means what you think it means!  


My proposal for AHS13 in Atlanta has been accepted for a 20 minute presentation. I will be speaking on Legumes in Human Nutrition.  

Since it is just the shorter talk, the plan will be to keep it to a discussion of a few traditional cultures and their use of legumes as staples or significant dietary components.  Given more time I would have included some unique nutritional aspects of legumes vs. other starch sources as well as different legumes, preparation and such.  However, since legumes are on pretty much everyone's "avoid - to - skull&crossbones toxin" list in this community, I will address this aspect in the context of the ancestral consumption of legumes. Said discussion will necessarily include at least a brief summary of the metabolic uniqueness of legumes.

I actually came up with the idea last summer during AHS12 when I was researching some diets of traditional (neolithic!) cultures.  Regular readers are familiar with what the sprightly Pima really ate, and there is quite a bit of peer-review literature out there demonstrating health improvements in modern day Pima returning to this traditional diet.  I have quite a bit more and continue to collect information on Australian Aborigines and others.  Anyone with information you think might be helpful can link here in comments and/or email me at carbsane at gmail dot com.  

Also ...

Any Atlanta area folks here?  This is still just a thought at this point, but I really would like to organize a get together of sorts -- be it picking a restaurant to meet at or something more formal like a kickass pancake breakfast or ice cream bash.  I want to do something to mix and mingle with as many reading this as might want to meet in person.  Ideas, offers to help organize, or just expressions of interest in participating are welcome.  I'll be posting about this as we get closer to the event and know when I'll be presenting and all that jazz.  

138 comments:

Charles Grashow said...

Say hello to Jimmy

MM said...

Congratulations! Wish I could be there. Hopefully there will be a video of it.

Diana said...

Wish I could be there.

Wouldn't black eyed peas be a more appropriate meal item?

Unknown said...

My understanding is that people who consume legumes turn into newts.

Asclepius said...

Great news and an interesting topic. I wish I could attend. Looking forward to the video.

Travis Culp said...

Look forward to seeing a video of it (that most likely will show the audience instead of the slides LOL).

Personally, I eat tons of peas, which happen to be surprisingly nutritious, delicious and satiating. Every time I eat some, I spill some on the ground for my lost homie, Gregor "Big Punnet" Mendel, up in heaven somewhere.

Diana said...

This has got to be the first time Gregor Mendel has been referred to as "homie."

Let's not make it the last.

I used to know a physicist who referred to Einstein as "Big Al."

Lighthouse keeper said...

One interesting point for discussion would be the peanut given that it is a legume and consumed on mass. Also it is usually included in with tree nuts in most of the recent studies showing the advantage of eating nuts to lower cardiovascular disease risk.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

If given 40 minutes I would have gone through the different types. I'll touch on the biggies though, but don't see there will be much time to go "there" too much. As peanuts go, they have only been dissed recently b/c of the allergies. Well, when I was a kid such were virtually unheard of, but many were allergic to chocolate and strawberries.

Sue Staltari said...

Will you talk about why allergies to peanuts?

Steve Parker, M.D. said...

Evelyn, you might look at the traditional diet of Costa Rica's Nicoya Peninsula. That's one of the four longevity "blue zones" discussed in Buettner's Blue Zones book. Maize and beans figure prominently in the diet.

Here's an introduction at Nat Geo: http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/happiest-places/blue-zones-costa-rica-photos/

lian johnston said...

Legumes always come out positively in studies. Red beans actually have the highest antioxidant content of any food. Even more than blueberries. Also contain a good source of magnesium which many people seem to supplement.

Susanne said...

Make sure you're up on all the "toxins" argument angles cause you know they're going to ask about that. If you want citations for the Paleolithic Mediterranean/Middle East I can try to dig some up. If you're going to get into the "What is the evidence for the Paleolithic era" at all, it would be worth studying up/having a crib sheet on the phases and developments of the Early/Middle/Late Paleolithic because nearly all of the botanical information is from Late or Final Paleolithic, just because of preservation issues. But then most of the other favorite things in the IHS are basically Late Paleo regional stuff too, like the heavy reliance on large mammals diet.

New World settlement will be Late Paleo, with bean and corn culture (as well as important foods like squash, potato, pepper, tomato) being New World only so if anyone complains that beans are "novel" you could ask why potatoes then are OK with some -- esp given that they are nightshades! -- and then watch the audience turn on each other (this by the way basically describes my dissertation defense). Ideally this will be captured on the video!

Apologies again for any duplicate postings, Google is very upset about my VPN connection this week.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

@Charles: I'll make sure to check out his poster!
@Diana: Maybe if I drive .....
@Unknown: Ha ha!
@Asclepius: Wish you could attend to. Maybe this year they will video the slides Travis!

@Travis: When it comes to satiating carbs, beans are truly up there. I used to make a lot of LC soups and they don't satisfy. I now put beans in some of them and the difference is night and day. I love peas (some "allow" green peas) and look forward to growing them this year.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Probably not Sue, but if I do I'll make sure to quote Mercola ;-) http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/02/peanut-allergy.aspx
In seriousness, one of the things that bothers me about peanuts is that just because X% are allergic, then it is bad for all. One really could say that about just about any food.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Thanks!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Yes, can't say I've read them all, but from time to time I go on a Google Scholar search and amass some studies and almost invariably they come out positive or at the very least not negative. I'm sure there are some negatives that can be produced in the lab, and I know many do not "work and play well" with legumes, but overall they seem to be a good source of nutrients for a sizeable proportion of the human population. And they are cheap.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

No probs on the duplicates. It was the moderation, not your VPN. Unfortunately that Razwell virus acts up from time to time.

Thanks for the tips! I plan to focus on the positive qualities of legumes, though I'll definitely be up on the alphabet soup of potential toxins. One trap I'll sidestep is any sort of paleo litmus test -- it is the "ancestral" health symposium after all :D Though history of cultivation etc. would be most interesting to include.

Jane said...

'Mousterian vegetal food in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel' J Archaeological Sci 32:475, 2005

'Plant remains are rarely found in Paleolithic excavations. The prevailing site formation process in most caves and open-air sites did not encourage the preservation of these kinds of organics...the large Mousterian carbonized plant assemblage retrieved during the excavations at Kebara cave fills a major gap in our knowledge of Middle Paleolithic gathering. ...Of the 4205 charred seeds and fruits that were recovered, 3956 seeds were identified... Most of the species are the earliest ever found at archaeological excavations. Table 2 shows that almost all plant remains... belong to the legume family (Papilionaceae)... The legumes may well have been suitable plants for starting a fire on account of such morphological characteristics as small leaves and narrow stems. Still, we believe that most were brought into the cave when ripe or almost ripe, and the presence of thousands of charred seeds strongly suggests that they were used for human consumption. ...we assume that the main source of energy in the diet of the Kebara inhabitants was the legumes, as their seeds form the vast majority of plant remains found in the cave.'

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Thanks! I've been mostly looking at more recent stuff, but this is quite interesting.

Rad Warrier said...

"I have quite a bit more and continue to collect information on Australian Aborigines and others. Anyone with information you think might be helpful can link here in comments and/or email me at carbsane at gmail dot com. "

If various types of beans, dals (moong dal, toor dal, urad dal etc.) and peas fall under the category of 'legumes', we can say that legumes play an important role in the diet of the people of the Indian subcontinet (i.e., India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangla Desh, Pakistan, etc.). Personally, I consume the aforementioned legumes daily and in significant amounts.

Regards,
Rad

Frank said...

I just can't understand the fear of legumes from paleo. It's highly nutritious and cheap. I've yet to see a study showing worsening of health from eating it. It's the highest possible source of fibers one can get.

Even the antinutrients in legumes can actually have health-enhancing properties and anyway soaking and cooking seems to take them to mostly a non-detectable level.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996909002695

I believe since it's a direct competitor of meat, this is why they had to give it such as bad reputation, so people feel that they have no healthy alternative to meat.

Asclepius said...

There is a line of (paleosphere) reasoning linking diet and stature. Those groups you mention are predominantly of small stature. Compare this to north Europeans who made a much later transition to settled agrarianism. I'd need to dig in to find research around this.

Frank said...

Clearly it can be debated but smaller people seems to have less diseases risk...

http://jech.bmj.com/content/54/2/97.short

And I don't see how being taller is an argument in favor of eating meat/avoiding grains and legumes. Smaller people consume less ressources than taller people, mainly when it comes to food. As a non-advanced society, that would have been better.

That being said, a lot changed at the same time when we adopted agriculture. We also started having social stratification. Who was eating mainly grains and legume? The poor. There clearly can be many confounding factor regarding smaller stature at this point. It could have simply been malnutrition.

Rad Warrier said...

I don't believe people of the Indian subcontinent are small statured (except those of the far north eastern regions who look like east Asians.) The average Indian is as tall as the average person from the middle east or southern Europe. On the other hand, the average East Asian - like those from Vietnam, Laos, Combodia, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the southern parts of China - may be considered as small statured (people from northern China, on the average, are tall.) The average north European is TALL and big as compared most other people, but that does not mean that most other people are short statured :) It just means that the average north European is tall and big and this is a genetic trait influenced perhaps by the extreme conditions under which their paleolithic and neolithic ancestors lived. At the same time the average Innuit ("Eskimos") who live under far more extreme conditions and who eat hardly any legumes are shorter than the average person from the Indian subcontinent.

Regards,
Rad

Travis Culp said...

It's part and parcel of the problem with paleo at large. Rather than being motivated by a desire to seek out dense sources of nutrition, most are motivated by fear of some compound that a nutritional deconstructionist has told them is scary. An actual hunter-gatherer has robust enough health (as a result of not being deficient in anything) that they shrug off the multitude of toxins/defenses that the hundreds of species that they consume have.

Eating only eggs, bacon, chocolate and coconut oil or whatever these people actually eat per day is so far from an ancestral diet, its absurd.

Here's an easy way to tell if you should ignore someone's supposed expertise about human nutrition: if the first word out of their mouth is "don't," "never," "restrict" or "avoid."

Frank said...

Damn... there is so many problems with the paleo approach to nutrition... and what is sad is that the internet has made it possible for these lies to be repeated enough so that it has become an accepted truth. Now you've got plenty of people repeating things like '' carbs = insulin = fat gains'' or ''whole grains/legumes are toxic/inflammatory'', ''we never evolved to eat these foods'', ''mainstream nutrition has it all wrong/we're so much smarter than everyone else'' blah blah blah. The things is that Paleo follower are *mostly* layman with no education in science esp. in nutritional science that are just too happy to be told that it's not their fault if they're fat and that they can keep eating they beloved meat and fatty food. They're just too happy to follow and not question. And you know if the government wants you to eat so many grains/legumes/avoid meat it is because it's part of a large conspiracy to make you sick so that big pharma can sell you pills. Clearly not because that's where the science is at.

/endrant :)

''Eating only eggs, bacon, chocolate and coconut oil or whatever these people actually eat per day is so far from an ancestral diet, its absurd.''

Yes, I can't believe they actually believe they are eating ancestral when they are eating these foods.

When will they start eating bugs and dirt as part of their paleo diet?

Asclepius said...

"Smaller people consume less ressources than taller people, mainly when it comes to food. As a non-advanced society, that would have been better."

@Frank - I'm not sure about that. I mean would differences of I dunno, six inches, really be significant in terms of consumption? Being bigger and stronger carries a host of advantages and carries a societal cache we see in evidence even today (in terms of pay for example).

@Rad Warrier - The Inuits seem to vary in height just like other populations - and some are tall, but yeah from what I have read, on average they are generally shorter then north Europeans but I am not sure they are shorter on average than those on the Indian subcontinent. Interestingly Inuit mythology talks of the Arctic being populated by a race of giants called Tuniits long before the Inuit settled there.

I might have to spend some time Google-Fu-ing this!
Cheers all.

Diana said...

Nilotic peoples are tall too.

Gabriella Kadar said...

The quality and availability of protein from pulses (legumes) is quite low, circa 20+%. So it's a good stopgap food but certainly suboptimal. Literally hundreds of millions of people in India live on rice, pulses, maybe some wheat, a bit of vegetable and minimal amounts of dairy. No one even knows how many people are living in this sort of poverty and malnutrition because there is no adequate census. But it's not hard to find pictures of these people. Just go to google. Anyone can see for themselves that these people are neither healthy nor robust. China is doing a much better job of feeding it's billion plus population. Shame on India. I'm only targeting here because of the all the media garbage about how India is a country that is evolving upwards. Not true. When a huge percentage of any country's population look like stick figures, it's not going to evolve anywhere.

If anyone is interested on the impact of nutrition of peoples, read 'The Escape from Hunger and Premature Death, 1700-2100' by Robert William Fogel and 'The Changing Body: Health, Nutrition, and Human Development in the Western World since 1700' by Roderick Flour, Robert W. Fogel, Bernard Harris, and Sok Chul Hong.

The first book is 111 pages of text. Then lots of tables, graphs and references to page 181. Definitely worth reading.

Gabriella Kadar said...

There's nothing wrong with eating beans and lentils. There's something wrong with trying to live on them.

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2013/02/26/anti-bpa-crusade-discrediting-science-and-environmental-health-says-leading-independent-expert/

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/114/1/1.full
Is It Time to End Concerns over the Estrogenic Effects of Bisphenol A?

BigWhiskey said...

Once one's pristine good health is compromised with Metabolic Syndrome, it appears that the nurturing and sustaining powers of the Ancient Foods may be very limited in it's restorative powers; the moderate stages of Chronic Kidney Disease, for intance, has known diet restrictions in Potassium and Phospherous which are abundantly found in legumes. So, then, let us raise a toast to the rice and beans, corn/flour tortillas and corn tamales and stay as long as we can!

jollier-rodger said...

I've been reading that you don't really have to combine plants (like rice and beans) to make complete proteins. True or not? Maybe that claim is based on an assumption that daily protein needs are very small.

But I've also read in other places that you do have to combine, but it doesn't have to be in the same meal, only on the same day. If that is true then where would the amino acids be stoted while the system is waiting for the arrival of any needed essential AAs? In the cells?

jollier-rodger said...

What's always mentioned with peanuts is aflatoxin. That threat is probably overstated, though.

BigWhiskey said...

They may be waiting for a glass of Barbera, you know.

http://www.ajevonline.org/content/47/2/127.abstract

Josh said...

Jimmy's poster presentation has already been leaked online.

Frank said...

@Asclepius

You still left out my main argument, being taller might increases your odds of dying younger. I don't see how this is something that someone would want.

Was strength and height giving a significant advantage 10k+ years ago? Who could say?

@Gabriella

It seems the latest protein knowledge would recommend 0.66g/kg/d for protein recquirement, which would put it around 10-12% of caloric intake. (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_935_eng.pdf)

John Mcdougall was arguing here http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/protein.htm that WHO recommends only 5% but I could not find that anywhere.

Anyhow, you could easily get like 15-20% of protein requirement from plants source to correct for the suboptimal absorption. This study is old and looking at more recent work from this author he seems to think lysine defiency is more common than once believed but here's an old paper from him that is worth reading

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10466163

Is it fair to say that the frailty of poor indian people living in extremly harsh condition is solely due to their diet?

How do china feed it's poor? I doubt it is with meat.

I don't understand the fixation on protein. I'm aware of no evidence that a plant-based diet that is energy-sufficient would bring amino acids deficiency. I'm not debating vegan vs omnivore here, simply the notion that grains/legumes can't supply amino acids needed for health.

Of note, methionine restriction has interesting research showing it could enhance health, and there's also, albeit not conclusive, evidences showing higher-protein diet linked to higher IGF-1 level and increase cancer risk.

What evidence do you have in mind when you make the claim that beans and rice can't optimally feed humans?

Kade Storm said...

@Gabriella

Yup. Those massive slums don't look all that prospering, neither does the unregulated--largely ignored--feudalism in the villages, used to keep certain classes in their 'place'.

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/science/earth/ct-scans-find-vascular-disease-in-ancient-mummies.html?hp&_r=0

"Indeed, this study, published online Sunday in The Lancet, found atherosclerosis in 29 of the 76 Egyptian mummies examined.

But the researchers also found the disease in 13 of 51 Peruvian remains dated between A.D. 200 and 1500, two of five ancestral Pueblans who lived between 1500 B.C. and A.D. 500, and three of five Aleutian Islanders who lived in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Over all, 38 percent of the Egyptians and 29 percent of the other mummies had definite or probable evidence of atherosclerosis, the scientists concluded.

The senior author, Dr. Gregory S. Thomas, a cardiologist and medical director at Long Beach Memorial Medical Center in Long Beach, Calif., said that among the mummies of people age 40 and older, 50 percent had atherosclerosis.

Diet and climate varied among these four groups. The Egyptians may have eaten a diet high in saturated fat. The Peruvians farmed corn, potatoes and beans, and they kept domestic animals. Ancestral Pueblans grew corn and hunted rabbits, deer and sheep, while the Aleutian Islanders subsisted on a diet of fish, shellfish, seals, sea otters and whale."

Lerner said...

Greetings, it's been a while. The Lancet has just come out with a study involving CT Scans on mummies:
http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S014067361360598X.pdf

"Probable or definite atherosclerosis was noted in 47 (34%) of 137 mummies and in all four geographical populations: 29 (38%) of 76 ancient Egyptians, 13 (25%) of 51 ancient Peruvians, two (40%) of five Ancestral Puebloans, and three (60%) of five Unangan hunter gatherers" with Unangans being Aleuts.

Susanne said...

Jinx!

Christopher said...

@ Gabriella -

"There's nothing wrong with eating beans and lentils. There's something wrong with trying to live on them."

Paleo peeps seem fond of saying things like that, but I rarely hear WHY. Beans and lentils are a hell of a lot healthier than what passes for food in Jimmy Moore's kitchen these days (to take just one example).

Lerner said...

So, it looks like no group was protected by the composition of their diet.

Here are a few photos showing them doing the scan on a mummy. He looks rather slim:
http://news.yahoo.com/study-even-ancient-mummies-had-clogged-arteries-001655831.html

"Dr. Mike Knapton, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation said calcified arteries could also be caused by other ailments including endocrine disorders and that it was impossible tell from the CT scans if the types of calcium deposits in the mummies were the kind that would have sparked a heart attack or stroke." Endocrine disorders, huh? That seems like a stretch.

Gabriella Kadar said...

That's it exactly. There is an almost sadistic pleasure for higher caste people to deny adequate nutrition to those of lower caste. And there's the view of the 'tribals'. Even worse.

I heard recently that the economy of a country depends on educating women. Then they can participate in the economy, bear fewer but healthier children. But recently I saw a documentary about how girl children in many places are taken out of school by age 13 so they can be married off. Why? Partly because if they are not married, they are targets for sexual assaults.

The more I learn the more upsetting it all is. A country like that isn't going to 'get anywhere' at anytime soon. That's for sure. And really, it wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for all the western journos like Tom Friedman and his ilk who are busy promoting the fantasy of a progressing India. I guess they got the special guided tour. Stop promoting a country where 600 million people crap on the ground wherever they can. Or where millions of kids play in open sewers.

At least in other countries where these sorts of things take place, nobody is promoting that they are on the cusp of becoming a developed country.

The Chinese are indeed consuming more animal meat than ever. They've even got huge beef ranches in Zimbabwe.

Gabriella Kadar said...

What JM eats does not interest me at all. I guess it interests other people or his productions would not be quoted all over the place.

Lerner said...

Hi, Susanne. You mean "jinx" because Charles and I posted the same thing like that within a few minutes? Okay, but can we choose a different word when talking about heart attacks? :)

Travis Culp said...

I wonder how those Unangans would have fared without the smoke inhalation or with it + a substantial antioxidant intake.

lian johnston said...

When a legume plant dies in the field, for example following the harvest, all of its remaining nitrogen, incorporated into amino acids inside the remaining plant parts, are released back into the soil. In the soil, the amino acids are converted to nitrate (NO3-), making the nitrogen available to other plants, thereby serving as fertilizer for future crops.[3][4]

In many traditional and organic farming practices, crop rotation involving legumes is common. By alternating between legumes and nonlegumes, sometimes planting nonlegumes two times in a row and then a legume, the field usually receives a sufficient amount of nitrogenous compounds to produce a good result, even when the crop is nonleguminous. Legumes are sometimes referred to as "green manure"





lian johnston said...

Don't forget the environmental arguement. ^^^^ That post was supposed to have quotations btw.

Lerner said...

Hi, Travis. It always stuck in my mind that the Kitavans "smoked like chimneys" while being free from ACS - though I suppose they had lots on antioxidants from the fruit there.

There's another thing, back from when I used to watch tv: on "World's Most Dangerous Jobs", the host worked for a while at a family business that made charcoal. The current owner talked about his grandfather who started the business long ago, who worked in the charcoal making shed for hours every day, yet after dying showed clean lungs on autopsy.

My guess is that the smoke doesn't really matter, especially since the smoke was only present in 2 of the 4 groups anyway.


Btw, here's a comment at Lancet:
http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S014067361360639X.pdf

which has another mummy in a photo, being not overweight (except for really big feet once again).

Asclepius said...

@Frank - Interesting link, but if I read it right, height is a secondary marker (of Helicobacter pylori infection in childhood resulting in—or being associated with—shorter height).

I am not sure we can say "being taller might increase your odds of dying younger" as no indication is given for the age such cancers develop. Cancer UK says "Around 95 out of every 100 cases (95%) are diagnosed in people aged 55 or older" (http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/type/stomach-cancer/about/stomach-cancer-risks-and-causes)

This means you'd likely have a size advantage up in to your 50s and if those diseases occur after the onset of reproductive age then would they be strongly select for? Also there may be other confounders at work as the site goes on to say "Millions of people are infected with these bacteria and most of those do not get stomach cancer so other factors must also be at work."

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I can't recall where I saw this but it was an academic source. (If by chance anyone recalls me linking to this please help me out!). I was surprised at the amount of protein we recycle daily -- it was like 75g. This makes sense, but it is still surprising. Potatoes contain complete protein and I recently discovered that so, too, does amaranth. But many veggie proteins are not complete so it is important for vegetarians to combine. No idea if that really needs to be daily. Probably not.

Unknown said...

They should have a "Has It Jumped The Shark?" panel at AHS, when I look at the blog posts at Paleo Buzz I keep thinking "Oh it's that one again ..."

Charles Grashow said...

http://paleodiabetic.com/2013/03/10/more-ancient-cultures-found-with-atherosclerosis/

http://cardiobrief.org/2013/03/10/was-atherosclerosis-the-real-curse-of-the-mummy/

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ACC/37790

"they concluded that the "presence of atherosclerosis in pre-modern human beings suggests that the disease is an inherent component of human aging and not associated with any specific diet or lifestyle.""


"Mr. Husten quotes the investigators:

Our findings greatly increase the number of ancient people known to have atherosclerosis and show for the first time that the disease was common in several ancient cultures with varying lifestyles, diets, and genetics, across a wide geographical distance and over a very long span of human history. These findings suggest that our understanding of the causative factors of atherosclerosis is incomplete, and that atherosclerosis could be inherent to the process of human ageing.

All of the studied ancient peoples probably had significant exposure to smoke from fires, which could cause atherosclerosis.

Perhaps atherosclerosis is just part of being human. I’ve always told my patients they’ll get atherosclerosis if they live long enough.

Since atherosclerosis causes heart attacks and strokes and death, we like to think we can prevent it or modify it’s course through diet and other lifestyle modifications. That’s true…to an uncertain extent."

Lerner said...

"significant exposure to smoke from fires, which could cause atherosclerosis"

But they only had the grassfed smoke.

Lerner said...

Asclepius says, "Interestingly Inuit mythology talks of the Arctic being populated by a race of giants..."

Hi, Asceplius. It seems that nearly every culture had legends of giants. E.g., in "Life Among the Piutes" there were red-haired ones in Nevada. If you plug into one of many pages about the Biblical Nephilim, they've gathered accounts of giants from around the world.

Jane said...

That comment in the Lancet says this: 'Most Egyptian mummies who were embalmed came from the affluent ranks of royalty or high priests who were exposed to a fat-rich diet'. Everybody thinks it's the saturated fat. Nobody mentions the white flour affluent Egyptians are supposed to have eaten.

Lerner said...

Jane says, "Nobody mentions the white flour affluent Egyptians are supposed to have eaten."

As I recall, the Paleos (unlike this study's authors) were always going on about the Egyptian mummies and wheat. But it looks like this study, with similar (bad) results among different diets, tends to negate the wheat argument.

The Egyptian mummies seems to have have had the most food variety, and maybe the most antioxidants/phytonutrients. Or the Peruvians might have tied them on that. The Puebloans the least meat and most carbs. The Aleuts the lowest carbs and highest fat. The Egyptian rulers the least exercise.



Diana said...

Gabriella,

India isn't really one country (sorry, Sanjeev). It's a subcontinent - like Europe, with a gazillion languages and castes and regions. It's bewilderingly complex. China really is one country. It does have regions and minorities and different languages but since the early days it has been centrally oriented.

So parts of India will zoom "up", and a lot of it will languish in the Middle Ages. Tom Friedman is a billionaire (did you know that?) who hangs with his billionaire buddies. Village India doesn't interest him.

Agree with you about beans and lentils. Not optimal, if that's all you eat.

By the way, an interesting book which touches upon China's food situation in WWII and how this led to Communist takeover: THE TASTE OF WAR, by Lizzie Collingham. The Communists were the true nationalists.

Diana said...

Lerner, Eade$ mentioned the wealthy Egyptians in PROTEIN POWER. He said they were fat because they ate wheat and honey. So he's probably ascribing CVD in the Egyptian mummies to carbs. This study encompasses mummies from around the world but he'll be saying it's the carbs.

Kade Storm said...

"Nobody mentions the white flour affluent Egyptians are supposed to have eaten."

So then we're back to white flour causing heart disease?

Kade Storm said...

Not disputing India's diversity. But there comes a point where 'diversity' and 'cosmopolitanism' beg for further explanation as to why some parts do languish in the middle ages. On that level, it is a macro-societal problem. Europe has its issues as well, but despite the economic crisis, riots, chaos, anarchy, more anarchy, racism, bloodshed, nationalism, none of our primary regions are in the middle ages or reduced to slums where the rodents and insects seem to thrive ON the human population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_list_of_Indian_billionaires

No doubt in my mind that tons of rich folk have ties to India and other countries in that region. There's a reason why this happens and I don't think it's *just* because they're diverse.

Beth@WeightMaven said...

It's curious to me that the World Health Organization's 2007 report "Protein and Amino Acid Requirements in Human Nutrition" doesn't even mention the concept of "complete" protein. In fact, here's what they say re dietary source of protein compared to their 1985 report (see original p 113 for cites):

----
The 1985 report based its estimates of the adult requirement value on only those available balance studies conducted with high-quality protein, since few of the studies with plant proteins included in the recent meta-analysis had been published. Furthermore, in discussing likely influences on the protein requirement, although digestibility was identified as an important factor that might increase the protein requirement with some plant-based diets, biological value was discussed mainly in terms of amino acid scoring. Thus, given the marked fall with age in amino acid requirements assumed in that report, the values identified for the adult amino acid requirements resulted in an adult scoring pattern which identified the dietary amino acid pattern of all likely diets to be adequate. The revised, somewhat higher, amino acid requirement values for adults discussed in section 8, and the suggested scoring pattern, mean that this conclusion needs to be re-evaluated, although on the basis of the new scoring pattern, mixtures of cereal proteins with relatively modest amounts of legumes or oil seeds, or animal proteins are unlikely to be limited through their amino acid content.

Although a lower efficiency of utilization of individual plant compared with animal protein sources has been reported in individual nitrogen or leucine balance comparisons (e.g. for wheat gluten compared with beef, egg or milk, or for rice compared with egg, or for lupin compared with egg proteins), the differences are often less than the differences seen between studies with the same protein. Indeed, in contrast to the ease with which differences in the biological value of proteins in relation to the amino acid content and chemical score can be demonstrated in laboratory animals, in humans it is extraordinarily difficult. This is because of a lack of reproducibility between studies with the same protein, and high inter-individual variability of biological value within individual studies, which can be up to 50%. Thus analysis of the variability observed in the balance trials done at one experienced centre showed that the biological value would have to differ by more than 50% before significant differences could be demonstrated with realistic numbers of subjects. In the meta-analysis, this large between-study variability was apparent in the “test” studies. This indicates that protein utilization in humans may be dependent on complex extrinsic factors that influence the behaviour of the organism but that have not been captured in the short-term nitrogen balance studies, as well as by the intrinsic properties of the protein, such as amino acid content.
----

And I won't quote it here (too lengthy), but section 2.3 (p. 13) makes some interesting statements re nitrogen balance and endogenous formation of amino acids.

Beth@WeightMaven said...

I also found that the chapter on veggie diets in Wilson, Bray et al's "Nutrition Guide for Physicians" which says that "It is generally felt that there is no need for protein combining at mealtimes."

I checked into the source for that (Messina and Mangels' "Considerations in planning vegan diets: Children"), which says that "It is generally accepted that combining complementary proteins at each meal is not necessary to ensure adequate protein intake."

And the source for that? The 1997 Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets

The cite for that? Young and Pellett's 1994 Plant proteins in relation to human protein and amino acid, where they say (see original for cites):

----
Because lysine is most likely to be the limiting amino acid in a diet based predominantly on cereal grains, it is of interest and relevance that in the skeletal musculature there is a sizeable pool in the intracellular space of free amino acids, particularly of lysine. The size of this pool responds to changes, both acute and chronic, in the amount of lysine ingested. Based on the data of Bergstrom et al, we calculate that after a protein-rich meal (providing 50 g bovine serum albumin) 60% of the adult daily requirement for lysine may be deposited in this intracellular pool within 3 h. Hence, a protein with a relatively low lysine content (maize) could be ingested some hours later than a complementary, higher lysine-containing protein (eg, soy protein) and the free-lysine pool in the muscle would buffer the low lysine content of the amino acid mixture derived from the digestion of maize. Overall, the nutritional quality of the combined meals would be high.
We conclude that it is not necessary to balance the amino acid profile at each meal, especially under conditions where intakes of total protein substantially exceed minimum physiological requirements. Consumption of complementary proteins at different meals over the course of the day should assure the achievement of an adequate state of nitrogen (protein) retention and utilization.
----

I'm not a veggie, but if I were, I don't think I'd worry about combining proteins.

Zbig said...

When was the moment it stopped being Incestral and became Ancestral?

Sanjeev said...

> India isn't really one country

That's actually my line, one I've used many times.

Charles Grashow said...

http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1136395

Effect of lipid-lowering therapy with atorvastatin on atherosclerotic aortic plaques detected by noninvasive magnetic resonance imaging

Methods Using MRI, we investigated the effects of 20-mg versus 5-mg atorvastatin on thoracic and abdominal aortic plaques in 40 hypercholesterolemic patients who were randomized to receive either dose. Treatment effects were evaluated as changes in vessel wall thickness (VWT) and vessel wall area (VWA) of atherosclerotic lesions from baseline to 12 months of treatment.

Results The 20-mg dose induced a greater low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol reduction than did the 5-mg dose (−47% vs. −34%, p < 0.001). Although 20 mg and 5 mg reduced C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (−47% and −28%), the degree of CRP reduction did not differ between the two doses. The 20-mg dose reduced VWT and VWA of thoracic aortic plaques (−12% and −18%, p < 0.001), whereas 5 mg did not (+1% and +4%). Regarding abdominal aortic plaques, even 20 mg could not reduce VWT or VWA (−1% and +3%), but instead progression was observed with 5-mg treatment (+5% and +12%, p < 0.01). Notably, the degree of plaque regression in thoracic aorta correlated with LDL cholesterol (r = 0.64) and CRP (r = 0.49) reductions. Although changes in abdominal aortic plaques only weakly correlated with LDL cholesterol reduction (r = 0.34), they correlated with age (r = 0.41).

Conclusions One-year 20-mg atorvastatin treatment induced regression of thoracic aortic plaques with marked LDL cholesterol reduction, whereas it resulted in only retardation of plaque progression in abdominal aorta. Thoracic and abdominal aortic plaques may have different susceptibilities to lipid lowering.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19242355

Effect of lipid-lowering therapy with atorvastatin on atherosclerotic aortic plaques: a 2-year follow-up by noninvasive MRI.

METHODS:
We investigated the long-term effect of 20 versus 5-mg atorvastatin on thoracic and abdominal plaques and the association between plaque progression and on-treatment LDL-cholesterol levels in 36 hypercholesterolemic patients. MRI was performed at baseline and 1 and 2 years of treatment. Vessel wall area change was evaluated.

RESULTS:
The 20-mg dose markedly reduced LDL-cholesterol levels (-47%) versus 5-mg (-35%) dose. After 2 years of treatment, regression of thoracic plaques was found in the 20-mg group (-15% vessel wall area reduction), but not in the 5-mg group (+7%). Although the 20-mg dose induced plaque regression (-14%) from baseline to 1 year, no further regression was seen from 1 to 2 years of treatment (-1%). Regarding abdominal plaques, progression was found in the 5-mg group (+10%), but not in the 20-mg group (+2%). Plaque progression in the 5-mg group was found from baseline to 1 year (+8%), but not from 1 to 2 years (+2%). The degree of thoracic plaque regression correlated with LDL-cholesterol reduction (r = 0.61), whereas thoracic plaque change from 1 to 2 years correlated with on-treatment LDL-cholesterol levels (r = 0.64).

CONCLUSION:
Twenty milligrams of atorvastatin regressed thoracic plaques. However, maintaining low LDL-cholesterol levels was needed to prevent plaque progression. In abdominal aorta, only retardation of plaque progression was found after 2 years of 20-mg treatment.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

The community remains "incestral" and the AHSociety is part of that. I submitted a proposal because this year they made the change of soliciting talks (though I think there could have been more outreach, I am unaware of whether or not they did so to local academics, etc.). My topic was chosen to fit with "ancestral". I am not sure the list of talks thusfar is more to the core theme this year or not ... we'll see. There definitely are the "celebs" in the mix. I won't stop using IHC if you're worried you won't have that to amuse you here ;-)

Lighthouse keeper said...

The bringing up of malnutrition in India here is a bit of a red herring with regard to the merit or otherwise of legumes as a mainstay of the protein component of diet. Many vegans who are bodybuilders, athletes, pro-sportsmen and women base their protein intake on them. In fact in Africa peanut butter (a legume) has been found to be one of the most effective foods used by agencies to feed starving children. Google Project Peanut Butter for more information.

François Létourneau said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Frank said...

Gabriella or Diana

Could one of you tell me what specifically is suboptimal about beans and lentils? I'd like to see some evidence along that show they decrease health.

As lighthouse said, a lot of vegan athlete are doing perfectly fine eating mostly beans as their primary sources of protein. There's a lot of confounding factor when you look at a place like India in regards to health and diet.

Asclepius

I retract my argument. Reading further it seems the link is far from clear and could even be in favor of taller people. Had not read deep enough into that.

Lighthouse keeper said...

" But they only had the grassfed smoke"

Lerner, it's good to see you were finally recaptured and returned to this asylum !

Susanne said...

In my youth, the proper apotropaic device to avert the jinx was to count very quickly to 10: "Onetwothreefourfivesixseveneightnineten". Touching a penny might also work.

Jane said...

'Contribution of Microbial Amino Acids to Amino Acid Homeostasis of the host'
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/130/7/1857S.short

'Among the reasons suggested for the discrepancy between N balance and tracer-derived indispensable amino acid (IAA) requirement estimates is the possibility that the metabolic requirement is met not only by the diet but also by IAA synthesized de novo by the gastrointestinal microflora, which are then absorbed. ...Between 1 and 20% of circulating plasma lysine, urinary lysine and body protein lysine of the host, respectively, is derived from intestinal microbial sources and corresponds to a gross microbial lysine contribution of 11–68 mg · kg−1 · d−1 in adult humans...'

Lerner said...

Hey, thank you kindly, Keeper :)

Recaptured? LOL! And I see that the world out there has gotten even more unsane. I saw talk here of EMF, and I thought that can't be referring to what I think it's referring to. But it is.

Evelyn is speaking at AHS? Am I understanding that correctly? I wouldn't have predicted that, but in retrospect it seems like a savvy move on the organizers' part: lots of dramatic tension to attract interest, instead of the same ol' droning on. That just might be the most attended presentation.

Evelyn. my suggestion would be to do some practice runs with others beforehand, to anticipate hostile questioning from the audience: like how a witness gets prepared before a trial with friendly lawyers, so as not to get tripped up via adversarial questioning during a trial.

Diana said...

Sanjeev,

OK. On the internet, it's easy to step on toes, however unintended.

Frank,

I don't think beans or lentils decrease health. I just don't think they are sufficient in and of themselves for optimal health.

"I know lots of healthy vegans" argument is irrelevant to this point. There are healthy vegans in the West, who probably supplement up the wazoo, and who choose when and how to exercise. When they are tired, they rest.

They don't live hard lives in some third world hellhole, hauling and lifting and working hard. Do you KNOW what a low-caste woman in an Indian village has to do, just to get firewood?

That creates an entirely different set of nutritional requirements.

(Now Sanjeev, I'm sorry for saying that some Indians live in a third world hellhole.)

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Hey Lerner -- nice to see ya around! I don't anticipate there will be much of any question period with the 20 minute format. There's no guideline to allow for Q&A that I am aware of. I will bone up on my legume toxins. I plan to have more fun asking questions if given the opportunity ;-)

Jack is moving according to recent FB postings. My guess is he'll open up a Teeth In A Day clinic somewhere in Mexico ;-)

Jane said...

Well that comment from the Lancet says this
'Why should our ancestors have developed such circulatory lesions? The causes are probably complex... For the ancient populations studied by Thompson and colleagues, infection is likely to provide the unifying explanation. A wealth of evidence points to a key role for inflammation in both circulatory and malignant processes.'

So it's supposed to be a high fat diet for the Egyptians, and infection for the others. But infection goes with malnutrition. The rich Egyptians won't have had episodes of starvation but the others might. White flour = starvation, as far as micronutrients are concerned.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I'm curious about the "inferior" comments as well. I would agree that if someone were to eat just lentils or just lamb for their protein, the latter would be preferable. Didn't someone examine Durian Rider's diet and find he's only deficient in B12? Not that I'm advocating BAD or anything of the sort, but I wonder if protein is part of the "problem" at times. (e.g. there are some cultures of sinewy folks who come pretty close to 80-10-10). It seems that the potentially problematic soy has also jaded things for everything that is classed as a legume (pretty wide variety of plants).

Kade Storm said...

Right, but does this acquit saturated fat or high blood lipids?

Kade Storm said...

I know that you plan on doing a post on this topic at some point. However, this subject of a diet based on grains and legumes does share some overlaps with the 'which is the preferable fuel' subject. Most of these high-carb/low-fat cultures have individuals enduring a very challenging life and living in a state of chasing glycogen supercompensation.

I always wondered if that kind of life style created a need for having a very high carbohydrate diet, but that full optimisation was never achieved. . . and I realise that this kind of goes in the opposite direction to what some of you are saying. Perhaps they're the ones that need to up the fat and protein, but I'm not entirely convinced.

Also an anecdote on my part, but I've found that some of those people from farming backgrounds in Asia, tend to develop excessive abdominal adiposity--with some medical issues--after their younglings take over the brunt of the labour. It's kind of strange, but they look both malnourished, but also sport a disproportionately larger gut.

Diana said...

Evelyn,

"I'm curious about the "inferior" comments as well. I would agree that if someone were to eat just lentils or just lamb for their protein, the latter would be preferable."

I realized after I posted that I didn't say this: I don't think an all meat diet is optimal either, far from it. I don't think lentils, etc., are inferior - just not complete.

Kade,

You read my mind. India is one of the world's leaders in diabetes, an Indian-descended people run into huge diabetes problems when they come to the West. I have wondered whether this is a problem of a genome adapting nicely to a traditional (if skimpy and incomplete) diet, and then when it comes into caloric plenitude - whammo, "diabetes city."

Kade Storm said...

Diana,

I used to think that, but since I can't be sure, my views have shifted. Although it is still a compelling perspective because many of them continue to live a similar dietary life of high carbohydrate foods with lots of added fats as well -- probably worth it for a someone working the fields. Problem is that many of them--that I have seen--actually look borderline-skinny, save for the pre-diabetic symptoms and the disproportionate gut. Doesn't one have to get substantially bigger to develop these problems? And so the genome question comes into play. Perhaps they're not adapted to carrying a lot of weight so they run into these problems sooner. Although going by the fact that they're diverse, one could also assume that they'd be more adaptable. I should probably stop using the word they -- there's like a many mixed ethnicities in that region.

Frank said...

Diana

Thanks.

Well, obviously in and of themselves they are not complete, but no one is eating a beans only diet. They are always combined with grains and others plant food and can provide a complete amino acids profile.

I don't know about the effect of a hard working life on protein recquirement. As far as I know, protein need for athlete are overblown, I'm thinking it's much more important to get enough energy than protein per se in that kind of case. I don't think hard work increases ones need for amino acids all that much. But I could be wrong here I don't have specific data on that.

Kade

What would fat and protein provide that carbs would not? Carbs are protein sparing, the more you have, the less protein you need, to as a certain extent. Carbs are the prefered fuel for intensive work. I'm not aware of any elite athlete being low-carb. Anyone engaging in high-intensity work of any kind will do much better with a lot of carbs.

Okinawan were hard working individual, doing very well on a potatoes-centric diet.

Also, personally when I look at the litterature, the role of fat in diseases seems much more clear than the role of whole, unrefined carbs food... cholesterol and saturated fat have been shown in healthy individual to impairs insulin sensitivity. A high fat diet is much more likely to result in type 2 diabetes than a high-, unprocessed carb diet. I'm not sure if this is what you were getting at.

Jane said...

I've been trying for years to find out exactly what's wrong with saturated fat, and all I have been able to come up with is some work showing that in rodents, it promotes iron and zinc absorption and inhibits copper and manganese absorption. In theory this could explain things, including high blood lipids.

Kade Storm said...

Just skip everything else I've said and consider this part.

If carbohydrate is the preferred fuel for 'elite athletes'. A claim that I won't be disputing in this life until and unless paradigm shifting evidence comes into the picture. Then what about those who aren't elite athletes? What about those who actually move to developed countries and leave behind their laborious life style? Is a mega carbohydrate diet suitable for them as well? It's a real question. Because I have found that law-fat high carbohydrate intake seems to go well with a particular kind of life style, but I could be very wrong and I am also seeing evidence to the contrary on that subject.

What is the optimal fuel in terms of health and longevity for the keyboard ninjas who are--depending on sub-cultural life style choices--mildly to moderately active but don't actually live a day-in, day-out, labour intensive life style or work as professional trainers/athletes?

Frank said...

Jane

They impairs insulin sensitivty in healthy individual (see the kanwu study)

increase LDL

feed inflammatory microbes in your guts http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22970557

coule be immunosuppresive (discuss in this) http://journals.lww.com/co-clinicalnutrition/Abstract/1999/01000/Gut_microenvironment_and_immune_function.14.aspx

Promote inflammation and most metabolic diseases
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/1/1.short

A lot is wrong with SFAs.

Frank said...

I would say, probably for the sake of giving out numbers

Carbs(unprocessed, whole food) 50-65%
Fat 25-30% mostly MUFAs and some PUFAs
Proteins 10-15%

And adjusting accordingly to biomarkers.

Most important would be not to overfeed in the first place and everyone should be active everyday regardless of what they do. Does not have to be elite level, and should not be actually. But 30 mins of fast paced walking everyday and lifting heavy weight every few days would do it.

Lerner said...

Thank you, Evie :)

Maybe I was just being paranoid about any who might not follow the rules.

Speaking of rules, I'm pretty sure that you have to wear a bearskin at those things. You might not be able to find one locally.

Btw, the aflatoxin that I'd mentioned in regards to peanuts is not a chemical made by the plant, it's made by the Aspergillus fungus. But that would not keep me from peanuts or peanut butter.

Diana said...

"Then what about those who aren't elite athletes?" Exactamundo. Or hard-working manual laborers. Or third world villagers.

I think it was here that I read, "earn your carbs." Most of us in the modern world do not. In that I include those of us who try to be active, walk, go to gyms, live in walk up apartments (as I do). Etc. It's not the same as being a manual laborer, or a dancer, or a third world villager. One hour of exercise a day doesn't cut it.

Kade Storm said...

So Frank,

You've basically served up the S.A.D. ratio, which is--in my opinion--fattening and palatable, and since it is lower on the protein, I don't think those with issues will have much luck keeping their intake restricted.

Activity level, once again, is nothing.

I am starting to think that with such a high level of carbohydrate that you're recommending, it should not be paired with a rather decent/moderate level of fat. Looks like the makings of those carb-fat bombs that I read about on this site. You might as well swap the fat and protein ratios because I can assure you that'll win out any day. On the other hand, since you were quoting McDougall et al., earlier on, then you might as well do low-fat the way its proponents insist that it should be done -- up the carbohydrate even more and keep the fat in the teens or even single digits, which can't be helped anyway because it occurs naturally in most whole food sources.

And again:

"What is the optimal fuel in terms of health and longevity for the keyboard ninjas who are--depending on sub-cultural life style choices--mildly to moderately active but don't actually live a day-in, day-out, labour intensive life style or work as professional trainers/athletes?"

This question isn't asking for a number, it is asking for a name.


"One hour of exercise a day doesn't cut it."

Right on.

Lerner said...

Here's a graph of amino acids that I think is worth a thousand words:
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/protein.html

(About 1/5 way down, with blue bars.)

So you can see with a glance what AAs pinto beans are low in, then try to spot something that's high in those AAs. The top line shows need, note it's not equal for each column. So you need a reference food to get the supposed ideal ratios of AAs. That's the AAS (Amino Acid Scoring) method. But all are not absorbed with 100% efficiency, so you then have the Protein Digestibility Corrected AAS (PDCAAS), which is used by the WHO. It compares to 3 year olds' needs.

Keep in mind that the site is from a vegan advocate, so he claims that lettuce is a good source of protein. No kidding.

Zahc M said...

The Kanwu study was not statistically significant. It was borderline. In my view a fair interpretation of the study would be "inconclusive".

Frank said...

Hi Kade

I would argue that it is not the macro repartition that is fattening on the SAD diet but the actual food.

That macro consumption could be acheived but eating nuts, seeds, legumes, whole grains, potatoes, fruits and vegetable.

Or it could be (well, actually it would not be a high MUFA diet on the sad anyway) eating pizza, hamburger, soda, ice cream, fatty meat, white pasta with fat-based sauce...

both diet could have the same macro %... which one would lead to more palatability and overeating?

I don't think that under energy equilibrum having both fat and carbs in one diet is a problem - i'm not aware of why that would be. I think that most of the problem in western country come first and foremost from overeating in the first place and being overweight. That would be the first thing to take care of.

If you want a name then, i'd say glucose, under energy equilibrum, would still be the prefered fuel.

I don't know. Most studies found that 30 mins of walking a day improve health by a lot. I don't know why you state that one hour of exercice a day does not cut it. Who would want 5 hours of hard work per day? I don't see how that could lead to longevity. In the long run that would certainly over stress the body.

If you take the Seventh Day Adventist, the vegan one, on a high-ish carb diet, are not that physically active by any standard, and are the most long lived individual in the USA. A glucose centric diet does not seems to cause problem in an overall healthy lifestyle.

Kade Storm said...

Okay, so you're in the glucose camp.

Anyway. . .

"That macro consumption could be acheived but eating nuts, seeds, legumes, whole grains, potatoes, fruits and vegetable."

I would certainly argue that macro ratios--even in whole food context--can very much matter. I have heard of, and personally known people who can really go on and on with the nuts in the context of a high carbohydrate diet and it doesn't bode well for them. They overconsume and that does lead to weight increase and hypercaloric state, and on a high carbohydrate diet, where glucose is favoured for oxidation, it's the readily transferable fats that get stored. I still contend that in conjunction with a 50-60% carbohydrate diet, a higher protein and lower fat ratio will yield substantially greater satiety.

Of course, until and unless we're talking about wasted calories with nuts, which then defeats the whole point of having a certain percentage of fat since you're not really absorbing the fat in the first place. Might as well deem it roughage.

Jane said...

Hi Frank
Yes saturated fat does all those things, if fed in excess or in the context of a nutrient depleted diet. Or, according to Ron Krauss, if fed in large quantities together with large quantities of red meat. He thinks the problem is that it promotes iron absorption. Saturated fat on its own did not cause metabolic syndrome in his subjects, but together with red meat, it did.
http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/2012/04/17/ron-krauss-saturated-fat-red-meat-it-depends/

Diana said...

Kade,

Just want to be clear, I'm not recommending exercise fanaticism. Far from it. Manual laborers, dances and third world villagers all suffer overuse injuries at one point or another. Give me the choice to rest any day and the option to be sedentary - this to me is preferable to a lifetime of hard labor.

Just saying that effectively the vast majority of Western/modern people are sedentary, even those of us who exercise consciously, and that when you key in your exercise levels in one of those online metabolic counters - you should key in the sedentary option, even if you exercise. Because you are.

Frank said...

Well, I don't see myself in any ''camp'' :)

I'm just going with what I can gather from the litterature and my understand of biochemistry. I don't belong to any ideology per se, nor do I have a blog or a book or anything to convince anyone of anything... i'm doing this for myself and going by the best of my knowledge.

You said...

''They overconsume and that does lead to weight increase and hypercaloric state''

Sure, but anyone serious about their nutrition should use something like Cron-o-meter to figure out how much they eat and make sure they don't overconsume. You can overconsume on any diet. People should have a rough idea of how much of and of what they should eat. That's the basic. Otherwise you're just shooting in the dark.

''on a high carbohydrate diet, where glucose is favoured for oxidation, it's the readily transferable fats that get stored.''

Yes, but only happens under overeating in the first place, which I hope you agree is the first problem. Without overeating, no fat accumulating, even with a lot of glucose and both fat and carbs in the diet. You'll be switching from fat oxidation to glucose oxidation troughout the day and will maintain energy equilibrum.

'' a higher protein and lower fat ratio will yield substantially greater satiety.''

I don't know. I average about 10-12% of calories from protein right now. As long as I eat enough, my satiety is excellent. I also always have in mind the litterature on high-protein diet, esp. animal protein, and certain amino-acids restriction and health. I don't see a higher protein diet as beneficial. Fibers are really filling. When you get around 15-20g of fibers per meal you're not that hungry.

A higher-protein diet could be beneficial in the context of shooting in the dark for obese individual in regard to satiety.

If you're just a little serious about your nutrition, eating to energy equilibrum, getting quality food in, and esp. are not overweight, I don't think it's necessary nor beneficial.

Kade Storm said...

Fair enough, Frank.

Yes, one has to be in control, but some aren't. That is why we have these studies and discussions. I've tested CRON-O-Meter before, but only to track nutrient status -- has potential. I just find that people can binge on nuts.

With regards to protein. I certainly don't view it as one macro, but rather, a collection of amino acids. There is evidence implicating some of those acids in negative light. I've been on even lower protein intakes. Not the greatest thing in the world, but weight was never my issue.


And I hear you, Diana. That was kind of my point as well. It's not realistic to compare out activity levels to theirs, and I do generally consider most to be sedentary to very modestly active. The only exceptions I make are for the DurianRiders and the professional trainer types who do tend to spend the majority of their day time engaged in some kind of trying activity.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

"If you want a name then, i'd say glucose, under energy equilibrum, would still be the prefered fuel."
On average, fasted trained athletes get ~66% of their energy from fat and ~34% from carb at rest. Ref: Fig. 2 from Determinants of the variability in respiratory exchange ratio at rest and during exercise in trained athletes. Fat is the preferred fuel for sedentary people.

"Sure, but anyone serious about their nutrition should use something like Cron-o-meter to figure out how much they eat and make sure they don't overconsume."
Do you seriously expect somebody who is ravenously hungry due to unstable blood glucose level after eating high-GL carbs to not eat any more because they have reached their calorie limit for the day?

"A lot is wrong with SFAs."
I guess nature screwed-up by making the fat content of breast milk ~66% SFAs. /irony

Frank said...

Hi Nigel

You'are right. Most of the fasted time is spent oxidazing fatty acids. So in that light what I said was wrong. Fat is the most used fuel by the body. But that does not means that a high-fat diet is the best.

Actually, it's getting to the point where there is not sufficient research to really make a case I think. There's not much research first : in healthy population. Most research are on sick, SADist individual. Then, there is not much research with high quality food on both spectrum of macro distribution.

''I guess nature screwed-up by making the fat content of breast milk ~66% SFAs.''

''Do you seriously expect somebody who is ravenously hungry due to unstable blood glucose level after eating high-GL carbs to not eat any more because they have reached their calorie limit for the day?''

At least you wrote high-GL carbs, and I hope you'll admit that this is not the kind of carbs I am talking about. And when you add in some fat it completly change the digestion process. And on that note... why do potatoes have a rather high GL but are the most satieting food on the satiety ranking list?

''I guess nature screwed-up by making the fat content of breast milk ~66% SFAs. /irony''

There could be a lot of different factor happening between a toddler and a grown adult human. You can't just extrapolate like that.

From wiki ''Human milk contains 0.8% to 0.9% protein, 4.5% fat, 7.1% carbohydrates, and 0.2% ash (minerals).''

So are we to take from this that we should follow a higher-carb, moderate fat, low protein diet because this is how human milk is?

I don't go by what nature intended. I go with what modern science tells me. You pick what ever you think is best.

A think a better question then would be : what benefits does SFAs have? Why would one want to consume SFAs? If you take the litterature as a whole (animal studies, epi, the few and not so well done RCTs) on the effect of SFAs, I have no reason to think it would benefits me.

Diana said...

Kade,

I figured that you and I were in agreement about activity levels.

Regarding satiety and protein, a few posts back Stephan Guyenet posted a study that "proved" protein was the most satiating macronutrient. Without wishing to reopen the debate, Jane pointed out that protein plus carbs (and fats) in a certain combo brought on the greatest PP insulin rush - which accounted for the greatest satiety. Insulin is the devil to the Paleo cult - it is also anabolic and without it we would have no muscle tone.

But I digress. Protein is the most satiating - in context, and context is all. I'm not alone in feeling that protein alone isn't satiating - but it's the anchor of a satiating meal.

Also I think that the Bray study (discussed here as well), not to mention the entire experience of, gee, the entire world, proves that people can and do overeat even satiating food. The cultural aspects of food, weight, obesity and thinness cannot be underestimated, any more than individual reactions can be.

The Paleo cult proves this in spades. It's mostly a group of modern narcissists showing off their hot bods. Health ain't got nothing to do with it. It's the visible abs, man.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

"At least you wrote high-GL carbs, and I hope you'll admit that this is not the kind of carbs I am talking about. And when you add in some fat it completly change the digestion process. And on that note... why do potatoes have a rather high GL but are the most satieting food on the satiety ranking list?"
High-GL carbs (e.g. stuff made out of flour) are the kind of carbs that people generally eat a lot of. Flour can be called "whole grains" if it's made from whole grains. I am familiar with A satiety index of common foods. From P679:- "Subjects were excluded if they were smokers, showed impaired glucose tolerance, were taking medications or had irregular eating habits". Subjects showing impaired glucose tolerance (a significant percentage of over-fat people) would produce a completely different result, due to unstable blood glucose levels. Studies can produce conflicting results, depending on the methodology used.

"From wiki ''Human milk contains 0.8% to 0.9% protein, 4.5% fat, 7.1% carbohydrates, and 0.2% ash (minerals).''

So are we to take from this that we should follow a higher-carb, moderate fat, low protein diet because this is how human milk is?"
That's by weight. By calories, human milk would be 5% proteins, 56% fats and 39% carbohydrates, which would make it highish fat, moderate carbs and lowish protein. But yes, what's ideal for human babies isn't necessarily ideal for human adults.

"I don't go by what nature intended. I go with what modern science tells me. You pick what ever you think is best."
That can be difficult, because studies can produce conflicting results & conclusions depending on the methodology used.

"A think a better question then would be : what benefits does SFAs have? Why would one want to consume SFAs? If you take the litterature as a whole (animal studies, epi, the few and not so well done RCTs) on the effect of SFAs, I have no reason to think it would benefits me."
I don't consider SFAs to have any benefits. I just don't consider SFAs to have any hazards, as part of a diet in caloric balance. A diet of mainly meat & veg & eggs allows me to achieve a caloric deficit or balance more easily than one based on grains. I'm not overly keen on legumes, apart from peas.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

Update:
On P677:- "Potatoes...Russet potatoes...Peeled, boiled for 20min and stored overnight at 4ºC, reheated in a microwave oven for 2min before serving".
That would produce a lot of Resistant Starch.

Kade Storm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kade Storm said...

Not to mention, most of our own DNL conversion of carbohydrate to fat is, indeed, saturated--adults and babies the same.

The benefits that I've heard of with regards to SFA? Heat stability. I'd rather not have my cooked fats in oxidised form. So what fat does that leave us with for cooking? Saturated, primarily. The benefit of short-chain fatty acids -- butyrate, which is also created from the fermentation of fibres. And then there's the gut anti-inflammatory benefits of medium chain triglycerides.


As for potatoes. I am so board of these indexes that rarely apply to those with impaired or abnormal glucose responses.


@Diana,

Yes, everything can be over consumed. I just think that a leaner diet of protein and carbohydrate with adequate levels of fat is superior to the high carb with high fat alternatives. I still contend that from an agnostic perspective, the whole food higher protein with lower fat and high carbohydrate approach will win out against high carbohydrate with nuts and minimal levels of protein. Also, it varies from individual to individual -- these studies are feeble in comparison to what we'll learn down the road.

You're also very right in bringing up the other factors, especially culture. And here's my ultimate contention on the matter: we can't really change these factors. People rarely change and cultural habits are hell to overcome. Doesn't mean that there aren't good exceptions, of course and neither does it mean that an individual is doomed to their ethos.

Diana said...

Frank,

"I don't know. Most studies found that 30 mins of walking a day improve health by a lot. I don't know why you state that one hour of exercice a day does not cut it. Who would want 5 hours of hard work per day? I don't see how that could lead to longevity. In the long run that would certainly over stress the body. "

We're talking about two totally different things, which is always a problem when communicating at a remove. I was referring to people who calculate what their caloric needs are from arbitrary formulas, and online counters that ask you how active you are.

I totally agree that 30 minutes a day is good. I also agree that manual labor jobs are taxing to the body, and lead to injury and perhaps lower life span.

Frank said...

Hi Nigel

''are the kind of carbs that people generally eat a lot of. Flour can be called "whole grains" if it's made from whole grains.''

Well, people should be educated and take responsability of their live. Not because everyone eat junk that we should assume that a high-carb, whole food diet is bad or that they can't adopt it, nor that saying that all carbs are bad in the hope that they will avoid the processed one.

''That's by weight. By calories, human milk would be 5% proteins, 56% fats and 39% carbohydrates,''

Is that relative? How can that be? From wiki, 100ml of milk is 1g protein, 7g carbs, and 4.2 gram fat. So it's clearly higher carbs. Obviously calories wish 4.2 g of fat (x9) is higher than 7g of carbs (x4) but the absolute composition is higher carb. You're getting more calories out of the fat, though. Is that what you meant?

''That can be difficult, because studies can produce conflicting results & conclusions depending on the methodology used.''

To me, that still is a better bet than falling for the natural fallacy and assuming that because something evolved a certain way, it elvolved for the best and at the best of its possibility. Evolution just have to be good enough to reproduce. It does not have to be the best it can be.

''I just don't consider SFAs to have any hazards''

I want my LDL as low as possible, so any food that raise it is an health hazard to me. That people dispute the causal role of LDL in the etiology of CHD is beyond my understanding. It has to be one of the most certain thing we know from all those year of studying human nutrition. But to each his own. As I said, i'm doing this for myself so I can't say much more if people chose to ignore this.

What do you make of the study I cite showing increase amyloid A and inflammatory factor from eggs feeding in healthy people? is that not a concern to you?

Hi Kade

''most of our own DNL conversion of carbohydrate to fat is, indeed, saturated''

Are you implying that overeating and DNL are healthy? DNL should not even be happening in the first place, and I don't think the fact that the body use to make SFAs out of it tells us anything in regard to their health properties.

''So what fat does that leave us with for cooking?''

Who said you need to cook with fat? I never use any fat to cook. That's kind of a false dichotomy here. You talked about Plant Positive video, have you look at his PUFAs oxidized one? Extremly interesting stuff in there. It would answer some of your concern and put things in a better perspective.

'' I am so board of these indexes that rarely apply to those with impaired or abnormal glucose responses.''

I don't understand why people approach health from a sick perspective. We are born healthy and should look at measure that keep us healthy, not things that are fixing our health once it is screwed. I don't really care about what broken individual experience because this is not how I approach my health - i'm healthy and want to keep it that way. People could fix their glucose intolerance just by loosing weight and exercising regularly - no need to go high-fat for this.

Hi Diana

Fair enough!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Interesting discussion here gang!

I find the breastmilk argument for macro composition of the adult diet utterly unconvincing. The nutritional needs of an infant differ from that of a toddler let alone an adult.

Kade, the argument re: sat fats that the body manufactures them has always been interesting to me because the low carbers are so vehemently against palmitic acid when it is made by the body, but glucose is also made by the body and they are very against that in the diet.

That we burn more fat while fasted is also not surprising or convincing. This is when fatty acids are contributed in regulated fashion from the adipose tissue (in all of us, all of the time, lean, obese or anywhere in between). Dietary fat does not generally go to meet immediate energy needs, rather it goes to the fat to be stored. It seems plausible that getting too much fat delivered to the cells from the diet can be problematic.

Kade Storm said...

Frank,

You bring up a wealth of questions that just can't be answered in a brief comment. So I'll just address the basic points.

- I may not cook in fats. Others do cook in fats. If I can't change their cooking habits or approach, then I will advise the safer fat.

- DNL takes place, even in hypocaloric states depending on the size of the meal. As Evelyn's pointed out, it is a much more mediated and regulated form of delivering fats. If it was bad, then body would not resort to manufacturing this lipid.

- Why people approach this from a sick perspective is another matter. People who get on here always measure diets by weight loss and other factors that interest me least. There is a reason for that, however. Most who are interested in these solutions have been sick and have had problems. If you want to talk good baseline health, maybe you and I can start a blog of our own, we could all it "The 'We Have Visible Abs' Blog And 'We Strive To Maintain Our Great Health'". ; )

By the way, I had a friend who I used to kick box with, and he developed some insulin resistance and glucose issues. I won't even tell you guys how much he weighed, but simply drop the hint that if you were to get him on a weight loss regimen, you'd be giving those folks over at those infamous concentration camps a run for their money. Everything is not so cut and dry and even the lean and those with 'visible abs' can have glucose-related health issues that need to be dealt with and weight loss isn't practical.


Evelyn,

I haven't really come across that many folk in the LC sphere who are against palmitic acid being manufactured from carbohydrate. The only time I have heard of such arguments is by proxy of some Ray Peat followers, and I believe they were referencing you. From my perspective, I thought the LC folks issue was the inhibition of lipolysis.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

"Well, people should be educated and take responsability of their live."
Sadly, people are educated on a regular basis by advertising that wholegrain breakfast cereals, breads, pastas & crap-in-a-bag is good for them because it's "whole-grain" and/or "low-fat" and/or "fat-free". There's sometimes even a tick of approval from some big health organisation to back-up the healthy message. As for taking responsibility, read Weighty Matters.

"Is that relative?"
Yes. Macro splits are by % of total calories.

"To me, that still is a better bet..."
Take the example of the SI study. From the abstract, you concluded that potatoes (which generally have a high GI & GL) are high on the Satiety Index. That's not what the study showed. It showed that boiled, refrigerated & re-heated potatoes are high on the Satiety Index. If you look at item 605 in International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2002, you'll see that boiled, refrigerated & re-heated potatoes have a GI of 23. You can't come to conclusions based on reading abstracts only.

"I want my LDL as low as possible..."
Why? There are other ways to die other than CHD. There's a possibility that low LDL increases the RR of dying from cancer. Old people with high cholesterol have lower mortality than old people with low cholesterol and I'm no spring chicken! Do you know your LDL particle number? If not, how do you know whether or not you are getting atherogenesis from a large number of small Apo-B particles?

"What do you make of the study I cite showing increase amyloid A and inflammatory factor from eggs feeding in healthy people? is that not a concern to you?"
No.

"I don't really care about what broken individual experience because this is not how I approach my health - i'm healthy and want to keep it that way. People could fix their glucose intolerance just by loosing weight and exercising regularly - no need to go high-fat for this."
That's rather selfish. The fact is that there are a large number of fat people out there, and those who have impaired glucose tolerance have great difficulty losing weight if they eat foods that send their blood glucose & insulin on a roller-coaster ride.

Frank said...

This shall be my last answer, not that I want to have the last word but I just think I made myself clear and we came to a point to agree to disagree.

Kade

''I may not cook in fats. Others do cook in fats. If I can't change their cooking habits or approach, then I will advise the safer fat.''

A fat that raise LDL is safer?... I think the logical conclusion would be that both choice are unhealthy and people should act on this basis. If you want to eat healthy, don't cook with fat because you either consume ox-fat or sat. fat. If they want to cook with fat regardless, their choice.

''If it was bad, then body would not resort to manufacturing this lipid.''

As Evelyn said, same could be said for glucose. Why do the body produce glucose during neoglucogenesis if glucose would be unhealthy? Why would we need minimum of 100g of unhealthy glucose a day? That kind of argument leads us no where. Again, I don't think the main goal of the body is to live 100y old. It just want to survive old enough to reproduce. I won't go by how my body evolved to make my choices.

I Thought that DNL was rare in human and happening only during overfeeding, and was a little more common in IR invidiaul? I might be wrong here.

''- Why people approach this from a sick perspective is another matter. ...''

Abs are not a measure of good health. Biomarkers are. They will keep evolving and I will keep adjusting in accordance. Maybe your friend was a skinny fat. What we know regarding IR...

From ''Etiology of insulin resistance.'' PMID:16563942

''This defect appears to be a result of intracellular lipid-induced inhibition of insulin-stimulated insulin-receptor substrate (IRS)-1 tyrosine phosphorylation resulting in reduced IRS-1-associated phosphatidyl inositol 3 kinase activity. The hypothesis that insulin resistance is a result of accumulation of intracellular lipid metabolites (e.g., fatty acyl CoAs, diacylglycerol) in skeletal muscle''

So a skinny fat could have accumulation of lipid resulting in IR. I'M not aware of any evidence that a high-carb diet per se, ala low-carb argument, produce IR.

And there could be genetic reason or others and in that case, diet might not even be enough anyway and pills might be recquired.

I don't want to make it look like it's simple - it's not. But in the case of overweight individual, loosing weight and exercising could take care of a part of it.

''We Strive To Maintain Our Great Health'"''

Why do you write this off as sarcasm? Is it foolish to try to remain healthy to you?

Frank said...

Nigel

''There's a possibility that low LDL increases the RR of dying from cancer. Old people with high cholesterol have lower mortality than old people with low cholesterol and I'm no spring chicken!''

Cancer cause the decrease of cholesterol, not the other way around. Same for mortality. People dying usually have a drop from their cholesterol level du to their illness.

See https://robustbiology.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/heart-disease-alzheimers-cancer-and-cholesterol/

If you don't want to listen to Plant Positive explaining this in depth in his videos.

'' If not, how do you know whether or not you are getting atherogenesis from a large number of small Apo-B particles?''

I know my LDL total number and it is sufficient. As I said earlier, the old studies regarding small dense LDL had methological problem. Both small and large LDL are atherogenics.

See LDL PARTICLE SIZE: DOES IT MATTER? http://www.athero.org/commentaries/comm564.pdf

''No.''

Well... lol. What can I say to that! I show you evidence but you just don't care so it's not like we can argue about anything.

'' if they eat foods that send their blood glucose & insulin on a roller-coaster ride.''

Which high-carb, whole food, plant-based food don't. There's plenty study where type 2 diabetics are loosing weight on a high-grain, high-carb diet. Some with extremly good results.

See

A high carbohydrate leguminous fibre diet improves all aspects of diabetic control.

Kade Storm said...

Frank,

- So your response to my comment about saturated fat is the rhetorical question about glucose? That's not a response. That's a non sequitur. I don't care to debate glucose. Of course it is essential. Perhaps you can bring up the part of my post where I argue against any level of glucose. 100 grams is nothing.

- Why I write it off as sarcasm? You really have to ask me that after the preface that I made before that chunk of sarcasm? Do I think it is foolish to maintain good health? Hehe. Please. Read the comment again, and if the sarcasm somehow overrides the actual essence of the overall paragraph then read Nigel's comment.

Some of us are healthy and we can maintain health and we can discuss that topic. But when I comment on these blogs, while I don't relate to the issues directly, I do try to look for solutions for those who aren't healthy. I have near and dear ones who carry a host of health problems and don't fit into this mould of 'maintaining good health'. I'd dare say that there is a difference of strategy between getting back into health and maintaining health--your prescription for maintaining health I'd probably not dispute, but for those who have yet to get back into health, I'd say other options are just as compelling. Even Evelyn has made the point that carbohydrate restriction can have benefits--for those with actual issues--in the medium short-term.


As for skinny fat. I sincerely think you don't know what skinny fat means. That's why I took Diana's ab line and incorporated it into my sarcastic line. He was sub-10% body fat. You don't get any more skinnier than that and that is not skinny fat, my friend. Try convincing, with empirically valid arguments, that a person of DurianRider's physique is skinny fat and needs to drop weight. You won't have your work ahead of you, you'll have the impossible head of you.

Here's something to look into: people with demanding and harsh lives who are inadequately nourished can also develop cortisol issues, which can send the entire body's glucose management into a downward spiral. Liver is forced to chug out glucose while the body goes into a state of resisting the uptake because of the stress hormone response, preserving most of it for the brain -- hyperglycaemia, etc. It's not a pretty picture and it's certainly not as simple as trivialised 'skinny fat' nonsense being applied to a guy who hardly has any fat on the body. This is why there is a compelling argument against the idea of a malnourished individual taking on laborious levels of physical exertion against a backdrop of poor recovery.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

"Well... lol. What can I say to that! I show you evidence but you just don't care so it's not like we can argue about anything."
I didn't see a study about eggs and Amyloid A on this page! Link?

"Which high-carb, whole food, plant-based food don't."
I will not eat a plant-based diet.

"A high carbohydrate leguminous fibre diet improves all aspects of diabetic control."
And which will make me a social outcast due to regular farting. So a high carbohydrate jacket potato diet isn't any good for diabetic control?

Kade Storm said...

By the way, feel free to respond. This isn't a race towards 'the last word'. I think what you perceive as disagreement, is actually others presenting the idea that there is a wider gamut of issues that can't always be covered under one umbrella or universal solution.

Take of example, again, that friend of mine--who's the farthest thing from skinny fat. When I look at his situation, I'm not simply seeing a person whose metabolic health might be transiently screwed up, what I see is a fine example of how many different ways/means/paths one can take to screw up their health without necessarily presenting the same collection of symptoms.

There's so many ways to develop glucose intolerance. To develop cardiovascular issues. To develop other problems often forcefully associated with a concatenation of other maladies, while wrongly ignored when presented in isolation.

Frank said...

1. My answer was only to show that it's not a valid argument either way. The fact that the body decide to make a SFAs out of DNL has no meaning in regard to if it's healthy or not, esp. with what we know in regard to dietay SFAs so far.

2. Yes, some people are unhealthy. That's unfortunate for them. I simply believe that prevention should prevail and health should be approach from a prevention perspective. Sickness can be approach by a curative perspective. I don't want to come as harsh to anyone sick here. As I said, this is simply not where i'm coming from nor what I have interest in for myself. If someone is sick, he can look at his different options and make a choice for himself.

Sure, I know what a skinny fat is. I just did not know what you buddy looked like. There are other reasons than dietary for sickness. Host of others. In that case, it might be possible that a dietary intervention is not the best to resolves his problem, so discussing diet for this kind of case is borderline useless. Say it's genetics, or stress related, or what ever, these are the issues that should be targeted. But we're kind of a getting quite far away from the initial argument here... When I was saying that loosing weight and exercising could help, I had in mind sedentary, overweight individual. You brought up a very particular case. I never said that those could cure everyone everytime.

If someone has a harsh life with malnourishment, it's not a matter of low-carb vs low-fat in that case. It's a matter of meeting basic nutritional needs and having sufficient recovery.

Diana said...

Evelyn -

I too am unconvinced about applying the nutrient requirements of a newborn to that of an adult. Kids are growing - and giving off loads of heat in the process. Ever seen kids playing in cold weather wearing nothing but a sweater? If I did that, even during a hike, I'd die.

"but glucose is also made by the body and they are very against that in the diet." Etc. My own low carb laffer is their argument about gluconeogenesis. The body can manufacture glucose out of protein to them is proof positive that carbs aren't necessary. I used to buy this argument, until it occurred to me that maybe this is nature's way of telling us that glucose is so important, it has provided us with a fail safe method of creating it, in the absence of readily available glucose sources - such as starches and sugars??? Eh???

I'd love to know what the long term effects of forcing the body into gluconeogensis mode (a form of starvation, really), are. More studies are needed!! But I suspect it's not good.

Frank said...

Hi Nigel

''I didn't see a study about eggs and Amyloid A on this page! Link?''

Sorry I thought It was on this page!

Here

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/111/23/3058.short

''I will not eat a plant-based diet.''

Why not? Carnism? You know that it's possible to get religious about carnism just as much as some vegan are about veganism. Both are ideology. Plant-based still has the most positive litterature to back it up as a whole. But that's your choice.

''And which will make me a social outcast due to regular farting. So a high carbohydrate jacket potato diet isn't any good for diabetic control?''

Don't be disingenuous here. I eat lots of legume everyday and don't have any social problem, and I don't fart much more than I used to.

Sure, a high-carb, potatoes-based diet would probably be just as good. McDougall has treated a lot of his patients with potatoes and white rice.

Frank said...

Kade

Yes, I actually enjoy the exchange so I'll keep responding haha :P

I fully agree that there is many roots to diseases. Dietary are probably quite weak actually in this regards. I have in mind something like 20% that is related to lifestyle, not sure tho'.

''There's so many ways to develop glucose intolerance. To develop cardiovascular issues. ''

There might be a lot of different road leading to it, but the pathophysiological mechanisms are all the same tho', not just being catalysted (does that exist?) by the same events.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I think Christopher was just using him as an example. FB & Twitter are full of folks who message out their every mastigatory event. The more important part of his comment is the "I rarely hear WHY" ... I rarely do either. There is a lot of talk (right or wrong) about grains, but not really about legumes. What is your rationale for that comment?

Lerner said...

Frank says, "You know that it's possible to get religious about carnism just as much as some vegan are about veganism."

Hi, Frank, you must be fairly new here because almost always the talk is about the "cult" of Paleo and LC :)

Now, I won't interfere in your current ongoing debate, but I will tell an anecdote. In the past we'd discussed Tim Olson, the ultra-marathoner who trains LC but on race day takes in lots of sugars. Recently, I saw Dr. Bernard from PCRM talking about the vegan ultra-marathoner Scott Jurek (http://www.pcrm.org/search/?cid=669), so I went looking to read a little about him. I quickly landed on a vegan blog, where a critical commenter said this: "veganism isn't a diet, it's a cult".

The response that came back said this: "Yeah, dude... it's the cult of awesomeness!" Now, right or wrong, that response is so good-natured that it's disarming :)

Lerner said...

P.S. It's "catalyzed"

Kade Storm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lerner said...

Speaking of PBS (which is one of the few channels that I get over-the-air), they run nutrition speakers during fund-raising time, which is happening now. An up and coming speaker is a certain J.J. Virgin, whose spiel is "Avoid These Seven Foods" and then you get health and weight loss and stuff. Somewhere in her theory, inflammation leads to high insulin, which makes people fat. I don't recall excess calories being mentioned, so I guess people make fat out of thin air, a' la Taubes.

She seems to be the protege' of either Neil Bernard or Fuhrman.

Then there's yet another thirty-something babe (this is becoming a trend) making the rounds, her spiel is about hormones and weight loss.

As of yet, I have never personally seen an LCer on PBS fundraising.

Kade Storm said...

@Frank

"My answer was only to show that it's not a valid argument either way. The fact that the body decide to make a SFAs out of DNL has no meaning in regard to if it's healthy or not, esp. with what we know in regard to dietay SFAs so far."

Not trying to pick on this too much here, but that doesn't invalidate the argument at all because for that to happen, your opposition would be arguing against the relevance of dietary glucose, which no one was trying as I understand. Body creates SFA. Body creates glucose. It favours creating these and they have their purpose. The issues with dietary SFA creating problems in the abused contexts has no relevance to the above just as stuffing an non-medicated diabetic with glucose doesn't, either.

I don't think the pathophysiological path for hyperglycaemia is necessarily the same for everyone. Some get it due to becoming overweight to the point where their cells cannot take up nutrition, they become insulin resistant, and so we have a spillage of fatty acids and glucose. Others, as mentioned, can have cortisol issues, which is another way of having glucose linger around in the blood stream for too long. Gluconeogenesis can actually serve as a prelude to this very problem.

On that note, going back to the individual we were discussing. I would certainly say that taking a break from his routine, along with switching to a more restricted carbohydrate regimen, actually solved his problem while he recovered. I'd certainly endorse that over medicating an otherwise young and in-shape individual. Although during that time, one can't keep supplying more glucose when the body isn't handling it properly. Of course, this was transient and he did recover and reverted back to the kind of diet that most of us engaged in such sport tend to observe.

And while I don't speak for Nigel, I will also like to address the topic of legumes, beans and gas. To be fair, your argument is entirely anecdotal. I know of far too many people who have trouble digesting legumes and beans and do indeed suffer from gas issues. You, I'd consider very fortunate in that regard--good for you.

I have heard that it's more of an adaptive thing and that people have to get used to eating these things, but I have to yet to see those with proper long-term issues consuming a high bean and legume diet, overcome the problem despite commitment to the programme.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Maybe Jimmy has a legume deficiency ;-)

Lerner said...

Evelyn, that reminds me, you're going to need a good opening joke to get the audience on your side. After many sleepless nights and lots of serious thought, I think I have a good one that you can use:

"Take my legumes... please!"

Nigel Kinbrum said...

"Sorry I thought It was on this page!
Here
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/111/23/3058.short"
Thanks! As per usual, I read the full study Cholesterol Feeding Increases C-Reactive Protein and Serum Amyloid A Levels in Lean Insulin-Sensitive Subjects.
Fig. 1 was interesting. Although 4 eggs/day increases CRP & SAA quite a bit in LIS, CRP & SAA are lower in LIR, and CRP & SAA decrease in OIR!
The change in lipoprotein levels is minuscule. I think that worrying about surrogate markers is probably worse for my health than eating 4 eggs/day.

"Why not? Carnism?"
No. Meals of only fruit/vegetables have satiety (they fill me up) but not satiation (I become hungry again quickly). I find that meals of meat & veg are the most satisfying and satiating. Legumes make me fart a lot. They really do. I'm not being disingenuous. I find plain boiled potatoes or rice insipid.

"Sure, a high-carb, potatoes-based diet would probably be just as good. McDougall has treated a lot of his patients with potatoes and white rice."
As discussed previously, there are potatoes and there are potatoes. Jacket & overcooked potatoes have a very high GI (& thus GL), so I doubt that eating those would lead to good glycaemic control. Boiled & refrigerated spuds are O.K. Rice is a relatively whole grain, so that's O.K.

What do you think about Dr Greger: 2003 - Optimum Vegetarian Nutrition - Omega 3 and B12?

Nigel Kinbrum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

:D I'm hoping for no fireworks in my presentation. It should not be a contentious topic, but you never know I suppose! Thusfar I don't see Gary on the docket ;-)

Frank said...

Hi Lerner

''Hi, Frank, you must be fairly new here because almost always the talk is about the "cult" of Paleo and LC :)''

No, I've been around this blogs since it's very beggining. You can find comments from me on some of the very first post :)

Thanks for the word haha :)


Nigel

''Fig. 1 was interesting. Although 4 eggs/day increases CRP & SAA quite a bit in LIS, CRP & SAA are lower in LIR, and CRP & SAA decrease in OIR!''

So? It was higher baseline and just did not increase in regard to the intervention whereas it did increase for the LIS. Interesting that it drops for the OIR, but i'm not obese. I'm lean-sensitive. Again, my model of health is from healthy, not from sick.

''The change in lipoprotein levels is minuscule. I think that worrying about surrogate markers is probably worse for my health than eating 4 eggs/day.''

Their baseline LDL levels was probably too high to respond to dietary cholesterol. And althought dietary cholesteol raises serum cholesterol in individual with low-TC, it is mostly saturated fat that raises LDL significantly.

''I find that meals of meat & veg are the most satisfying and satiating.''

Is that your biggest concern when it comes to diet? Satiety? Being hungry has never killed anyone you know.

''What do you think about Dr Greger: 2003 - Optimum Vegetarian Nutrition - Omega 3 and B12?''

Haven't watch it. Is there anything in particuliar you'd want me to comments on?

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Oh you're that Frank! Nice to see you!! If you don't mind, I seem to have "misplaced" a study you sent me once ...women where REE went up in some upon dieting or somesuch? If you don't remember this or this wasn't you, nevermind ... but if you do, can you resend to carbsane at gmail dot com? Thanks!

Nigel Kinbrum said...

"So? It was higher baseline and just did not increase in regard to the intervention whereas it did increase for the LIS. Interesting that it drops for the OIR, but i'm not obese. I'm lean-sensitive. Again, my model of health is from healthy, not from sick."
But CRP & SAA was similar baseline and lower with intervention for LIR than LIS. That's odd. Can CRP & SAA be trusted as accurate surrogate markers?

"Is that your biggest concern when it comes to diet? Satiety? Being hungry has never killed anyone you know."
Yes. I want a good quality of life. That means one free from excessive hunger pangs (and excessive farting).

"Haven't watch it. Is there anything in particuliar you'd want me to comments on?"
Dr Greger (a vegan MD) stated that large studies show no difference in overall mortality between omnivores and vegans, but vegans have double the mortality from degenerative brain diseases compared to omnivores.

Lighthouse keeper said...

Maybe you should have the audience check their pulses before you begin ( sorry, very bad legume joke )

Diana said...

Nigel, Kade, Frank, Lerner -

I've really lost sight of what this exchange is about.

Here is my takeaway, born of watching my very long-lived family kick off -

Get the hell out of the way of your genes. Don't do any more damage than life already does.

Then, fuhgeddaboutit. As we say where I am from.

"Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat" -- "All hours wound, the last kills."

Lerner - my wrist is 91.7% back.

Anonymous said...

I visited multiple sites but the audio quality for audio songs present at
this website is really superb.

Also visit my web-site :: http://www.lcplunderground.com/AdrianaLa

Post a Comment

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