Discuss the influence of low carb diets here.

flightisleavin · Post by **flightisleavin** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:16 pm

This might be a vent post because I am receiving all these low carb links these days and they are irritating me to no end.

I am still reading about the benefits of a low carb diet. Most of them do not make a distinction between the carbs of fruit, vegetables, whole grains and that of soda, commercial bakery items, etc. Just don't eat carbs or keep them to about 40 grams a day. I have not read Gary Taubes' book but he is the "expert" in this and he drives it home that carbs are the enemy.

I read the article that Reinhard linked about when people go off their Atkins style plan, their cholesterol goes up.

As I interpret these low carb diets they do indeed work but people have an incredibly hard maintaining them. I see my friends struggle with them and so I did I when I attempted them. What I see is that what is driving them is the idea that you stuff yourself with meat and fat to stave off hunger plus all carbohydrates are what make you hungry. The zerocarb blog site says not to eat any carbs including green vegetables because they just make want you want to eat more carbs. I say the reason you want to eat carbs is because you are not getting any. And yes I know about ketosis and how you lose your appetite. and supposedly being in ketosis is not harmful. And yes I know the cultures who only ate seal meat and were healthy. Because there are also cultures who are vegetarian and they stayed lean. I suspect that neither group ate a lot of microwave popcorn on their break or had a protein bar for a pick me up.

Well I have a new set of drivers myself and they are telling me that cutting out food groups all together is not way the universe intended for the humans to stay lean. Cutting out Little Debbies cake yes, but cutting out vegetables and sweet peaches that have just been harvested - um no. And then stuffing myself with meat to stave off hunger, not so sure...because I know I will stop because I am sick of it and so I have ended up eating less, which is the whole point.

There seems to be very few experts that are willing to say you need to stay mindful of how much you are eating and learn to moderate yourself. Or they give the 6 small meal doctrine which ends up 3 big means and 3 snacks. Low carbers "snack" on meat and cheese or ketosis has taken hold. Weight Watchers wants you to eat their frozen desserts and Atkins and South Beach have bars when you can no longer tolerate meat and cheese.

I wonder how our great grandmothers would see the low carb craze? "So you can eat my roast but you cannot have the green beans, the potatoes (all foods she prepared from scratch) and certainly not the apple pie she made. Every night from here on out it will just be half the roast and a spoonful of whatever green vegetable. Great Grandma and Grandpa who have never had a problem with their weight don't quite get this.

What has been you experience with low carb? Do you cut all carbs except for green salads/vegetables? I do agree they are good in the sense that it pretty much eliminates the junk food. But I don't know if drinking diet soda and using splenda and protein bars really solves the sweet tooth.

sophiasapientia · Post by **sophiasapientia** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:55 pm

What has been you experience with low carb? Do you cut all carbs except for green salads/vegetables? I do agree they are good in the sense that it pretty much eliminates the junk food. But I don't know if drinking diet soda and using splenda and protein bars really solves the sweet tooth

.

Well, 3 or 4 years ago I lost over 70 pounds on a low carb diet, combined with regular exercise. On the plan, I was on -- Carbohydrate's Addicts -- I ate a lot of (lower carb) veggies. I probably ate more veggies than I do now because I had them with breakfast, lunch and dinner. I was allowed carbs at one meal a day and I usually opted for chocolate as a dessert with dinner. So it didn't really eliminate my sweet tooth ... In fact, I ate more sweets than I ever did before or since.

I went off the plan, after reaching my goal, because I just didn't feel that my brain or body were functioning well without carbs. I felt foggy a lot of the time and my DH was worried about me. I also needed more fiber than I was eating. The weight came off easily but I don't think I could ever go back to it again, unless I had to ...

With that said, I think that LC works well for some folks and all the power to them, especially now that LC is no longer in vogue. I do think there are some benefits, especially if you are getting enough veggies in your diet.
My sister has PCOS and several specialists have encouraged her to try LC, although she isn't all that interested.

Bushranger · Post by **Bushranger** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:56 pm

I had great success losing 8kg on the CSIRO diet here in Australia. It is a scientifically tested diet by CSIRO and basically boils down to good common sense eating, no snacks, 3 squares a day with moderate/low carbs. A healthier spin on Aitkens kind of.

I know it can be different with some people but I find I get fat much faster on breads (carbs) and sugars then I ever do on actual fats. I will be quick to point out though that processed meats get me fat also but fatty natural cuts don't seem to do much to me.

I think the nature of the carbs or fats is THE number one thing to look. Regardless of if you are low carbing or not.

spleener · Post by **spleener** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:57 am

I discovered Protein Power around 1996, and have done that and/or Atkins) off and on for over a decade--and hey, I'm a good 30 pounds heavier than I was then. At my heaviest I was about 70 or 80 pounds heavier than when I started dabbling with low-carb diets. I've also done Nutri-System, Slimfast, Medifast...all very hard to maintain for more than a few months.

You're right; doing Atkins to the letter is really difficult and becomes extremely unpleasant. I love what Reinhard says about No S starting hard and getting easier, while other diets do the opposite.

I've only been noessing for 11 days, but I'm already floored at how my carb cravings (huge, huge issue for me) have pretty much disappeared. Part of it is psychological--if I want a burger and fries, I can have them anytime, which actually makes me less likely to eat the really bad stuff, even when it's allowed--and I think part of it is physiological. Both Atkins and Medifast completely forbid fruit, so I've gone a solid year without having much at all.

I'm eating more fruits and vegetables now than I have in a long time. Very often, half my plate is covered with fruits, veggies, beans, and whole grains. I'm really enjoying my food, and because there's nothing I can't have, I really don't have a desire to go crazy.

flightisleavin · Post by **flightisleavin** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:13 am

spleener wrote:.
You're right; doing Atkins to the letter is really difficult and becomes extremely unpleasant.

I love what Reinhard says about No S starting hard and getting easier, while other diets do the opposite.

That is exactly it! I never thought of it that way but that is how it feels.

I do know some people who swear by them and don't have a problem cutting out almost all carbs.

kccc · Post by **kccc** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:06 pm

I think that people vary so much that they react differently to diets. Some people thrive on all meat, others as vegetarians. I have learned that I am a "flexitarian" - I do best on a low-meat diet that's high in fruits/veggies, complex carbs, and protein from a variety of sources.

I have never attempted the strict Atkins-type diets b/c just the thought of eating that much meat and limiting veggies that stringently makes me miserable. But I do know people who like that approach.

With that said, I think there's a VAST difference in types of carbs. The whole-grain ones give me energy, and highly-processed ones...don't. Over time, they make me feel icky. (I know "icky" isn't a clear term, but it's a cluster of just-not-quite-right stuff that adds up.)

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:06 am

sophiasapientia wrote:
I went off the plan, after reaching my goal, because I just didn't feel that my brain or body were functioning well without carbs.

Possibly because your brain (and a couple of other organs) require carbs to function well.

Truth is, over the course of history populations have based their diets on what was available to them and in many cases this was carbs -- grains, starchy vegetables and legumes.

I think many of the current recommendations are based on what Michael Pollan calls "parking lot science":

You measure what you can see, and you inevitably decide that what you can see is what matters. Cholesterol is a classic example. It's the first factor related to heart disease that we could measure. So, the science got obsessed with cholesterol, and cholesterol became the cause of heart disease, and dietary cholesterol was what you had to eliminate. This is parking lot science. It's based on the parable of a man who loses his key in a parking lot at night. He spends all his time looking for it under the lights even though he knows that's not where he lost it, because that's where he can see best.

Carbs would be another example -- although there's a big difference between Little Debbie cakes and cookies , for example, and whole grains, starchy vegetables and legumes. In fact, I'm not even sure that the white flour, rice and sugar as evil as they're made to sound. I think there's a big difference between Little Debbie and what I make at home!

I think there's some parking lot science in the links below -- also some good points:

http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2004nl/ ... pucarb.htm

http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2009nl/feb/starch.htm

Cassie · Post by **Cassie** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:51 am

I've half-heartedly attempted a no-carb diet several times in the past. Never a strict Atkins-type diet, more like a carbs-once-a-day kind of thing. It never worked. I agree completely that it's simply not natural to be eating that much meat & fat & to be eliminating fruit / veg. On the other hand, I do of course agree that white flour / white sugar & snacks based on these ingredients, in large quantities, probably do play havoc with blood sugar levels. So I'm not completely against the whole GI idea... but it's a matter of MODERATION. If someone eats meals based on veg / fruit / some protein & some good carbs (and actually the word 'good' I really don't like... lets just say eating some wholegrain or sweet-potato type things most of the time) then that surely is a healthy diet isn't it?
And of course it all has to do with quantities too. Because I strongly believe that people that do low-carb diets cannot physically manage the portions of food that those who eat loads of carb too. How can you stuff yourself on steak? After a point you get sick of it. While you can easily stuff yourself with toast & butter, cake or pasta.

Bushranger · Post by **Bushranger** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:02 am

The whole diet thing (as in what you actually should eat) is a total mess at the moment. There are seemingly solid arguments for every combination/side you can think of. I've been researching it myself for some time now and I'm getting fairly close to a fact based conclusion. I'm even tempted to write a book or at the very least long article about it.

Of course NO S Diet as far as how to eat it, now that's pretty much spot on.

flightisleavin · Post by **flightisleavin** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:27 pm

Thanks so much for those links and comments. I don't mean to belabor the subject but I have gotten the lecture on avoiding carbs as the "proper" way to really have success -it has been scientifically proven. To be fair I have also gotten the low fat, low calorie counting points diatribe also. Moderation does not work I am told because at some point you will have craving and eat the whole thing of whatever and it is better not to have the "trigger" foods. I'd say if you have success you can support your claims.

I was thinking of the work of Gary Taubes. I have not read his book but from reading the reviews if everyone gave up bread, pasta and rice, tropical fruit (in addition to the processed carbs) no one would ever have a weight problem or diabetes. And he says that exercise does nothing but make you hungry and does not contribute to weight loss. His followers are pretty adamant that bread and starchy vegetables are as evil as Sara Lee and he has the science to prove it. Is he right? I don't know. Culture would tell you that people who did physical exercise ate rice and pototoes for centuries did not find themselves overweight. That is what confuses me about his "science." Short article about Taubes. http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stori ... e-obesity/

So it is all very controversial and indeed there are food wars.

I like Reinhard's approach of looking at snacking all day and loading up your plate as what needs to be changed.

I do like what Michael Pollan has to say and he makes sense to me, not that I considered him a guru, just that he makes sense to me.

Having said that food and eating is a personal thing and whatever your preference is that is what it is.

For me personally I found that I failed either way and I felt no S was a simpler way of approaching it. The irony of it is I have more control being moderate than I ever did withholding food groups or obessively counting.

The Great Fatsby · Post by **The Great Fatsby** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:43 pm

I can't believe that giving up bread and starches could possibly be healthy. And it's certainly not healthy for the environment to eat a lot of meat... but that said, I did have some sucess with the Zone Diet years ago. I found that it was pretty healthy if you follow the advice of choosing the best kinds of protien, fat and carbohydrates. The problem with it was that you had to count blocks all the time and that got old pretty fast!

jules · Post by **jules** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:26 pm

The problem is that people paint entire categories of food as evil. People have been eating pasta and rice for centuries in China. The rice wasn't highly processed and, most likely, neither was the pasta.

Whole grain pastas are readily available now as are rices that haven't had all the nutrients polished off of them.

The idea of a "trigger" food might be nice but not all of us binge uncontrollably or even binge at all. My own weight gain happened gradually, over a number of years, of fairly steady overeating and underexercising.

For centuries, grains and the starchy food made from them, were considered staples. What changed? Modern inactivity and modern overprocessing of foods.

Over43 · Post by **Over43** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:46 pm

Most low carb diets won't make a distinction between fruits, some dairy, whole grains, etc. and soda, doughnuts, candy bars, Whoppers with Cheese, and again, etc. They believe (and I don't) that watermelon, peaches, oranges, apricots cause the same insulin reaction as ice cream, chocolate milk, and a Big Hunk. So, somewhere along the way, many people who do these diets (and I have successfully) begin to develop a phobia concerning anything sweet. It is unfortunate. An apple a day, I have found, does help promote weight loss.

Anyway, this is a good thread. I don';t think "low carb" is bad, but when people start replacing fruits and vegetables with pork rinds, pepperoni, and low carb candy bars- then I think they need to stand back and take a look.

J.

Bushranger · Post by **Bushranger** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:35 am

The whole low-carb for weight loss and health has hardly been "scientifically" proven. If you look at cold hard facts the longest lived and healthiest cultures on earth consume a decent amount of fruit, veg, legumes, nuts, seeds, starch products (ie: rice, corn) and little animal products. Scientists can test all they want but I'd rather just look at the living proof for answers rather than questionable theories.

Okinawans - oldest healthy population average on earth - a TON of rice and vegies and small amounts of fish regularly.

Massai - one of the earliest dying tribal groups on earth - live almost exclusively on meat, blood and milk. They live quite a bit less and have more diseases then other similarly primitive tribes in Africa that eat more fruit, veg and starches but less animal products.

I have a lot more examples and scientific articles and research but that is for another time. Suffice to say you get my drift.

I find the "paleo" diet hard to swallow for these exact reasons, well the modern interpretation of it anyway; which is to consume volumes of meat and fat and little else. What these paleo fans don't realise though is that hunter gatherers didn't eat bulk meat in reality because it wasn't easily obtained most of the time. If you want to see a really extreme version check out cavemanpower.com. That clown actually openly encourages people to not eat all day then gorge on a "feast" once per night. what he fails to appreciate is that not eating semi-regularly was never by choice, it was forced by lack of finding food.

Seriously, even a recent study into Atkins shows the weight loss was in fact from calorie deficit because protein consumption satisfies cravings quickly; it wasn't because it was any healthier or "right". Nor was it the Ketosis that the Atkins fans rave about.

Forgive my ravings; I just get so sick of retarded theories being bandied around as scientific fact. I think the more we develop our technologies as humans the more we disconnect from reality. It's just like why we do such obscure movements in a gym which have no basis in real movement or reality. Why the need to test some theory when there are people alive in the world today who show us the truth just by the way they live?

Smiley face just to show I'm happy

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:43 am

Bushranger wrote:The whole diet thing (as in what you actually should eat) is a total mess at the moment. There are seemingly solid arguments for every combination/side you can think of. I've been researching it myself for some time now and I'm getting fairly close to a fact based conclusion. I'm even tempted to write a book or at the very least long article about it.

Of course NO S Diet as far as how to eat it, now that's pretty much spot on.

I don't think there is one combination that works for everyone. Pollan's "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." is about as close to universal advice as one can get. In exactly what combination depends on the individual.

There was an interesting entry on the Well blog at the NY Times site a few months ago: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/2 ... iet&st=cse

One of the readers commented that one of the things that fascinated him was how people thrive on various diets. He had friends who thrived on a low-carb diet, but he did not. He'd spent time in India with those who ate a largely vegetarian diet, and some members did well on that, some only felt well on the days a little meat was added.

jules wrote: The problem is that people paint entire categories of food as evil. People have been eating pasta and rice for centuries in China. The rice wasn't highly processed and, most likely, neither was the pasta.

Whole grain pastas are readily available now as are rices that haven't had all the nutrients polished off of them.

The idea of a "trigger" food might be nice but not all of us binge uncontrollably or even binge at all. My own weight gain happened gradually, over a number of years, of fairly steady overeating and underexercising.

For centuries, grains and the starchy food made from them, were considered staples. What changed? Modern inactivity and modern overprocessing of foods.

It's my understanding that the Chinese (and other Asians) eat large quantities of white rice, but since they eat lots of vegetables along with it and other whole foods, it's not an issue healthwise. It's only when white rice is their only food that they have issues with health.

I agree that the overprocessing of food and lack of activity are huge issues here in the U.S. as is the fact that our diet seems to be based on them and meat rather than including many plant foods.

StrawberryRoan · Post by **StrawberryRoan** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:59 am

I think Dolly Parton said it best.

When asked how she had lost a large amount of weight and kept that tiny waist of hers for so many years, she replied,''

"I just learned that I could eat whatever I wanted - just not all at once."

masher · Post by **masher** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:28 pm

For what it is worth, I lost my excess weight, approximately30 pounds, by eating lots of vegetables,salads, fish, poultry, yogurt and berries. Technically, this was a low carb diet. It would also be considered very healthy by many. I felt great most of the time and I lost weight in the right places. So.....why am I here on the No S board? Because every month or so, I could not resist the siren call of carbs, and I would overindulge and feel awful. By overeating anything with sugar or refined carbs I would experience a metabolic tidal wave; heart pounding, insomnia and headache. Dreadful. I thought that there must be a better way to maintain my weightloss.

Now I am not the first to notice this, but I spend time in France and see that my Parisian friends are slim, yet indulge once in a while. They basically have the social structure, culture and history which forbids snacking and seconds, and they eat desserts rarely but love them when they do. They are careful. They are mindful. No S gives me the structure my Parisians friends have, and I think it makes sense.

So low carb helped me lose excess weight, but felt to draconian for "ever".
No S could be forever.

flightisleavin · Post by **flightisleavin** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:29 pm

Bushranger wrote:The whole low-carb for weight loss and health has hardly been "scientifically" proven. If you look at cold hard facts the longest lived and healthiest cultures on earth consume a decent amount of fruit, veg, legumes, nuts, seeds, starch products (ie: rice, corn) and little animal products. Scientists can test all they want but I'd rather just look at the living proof for answers rather than questionable theories.

Forgive my ravings; I just get so sick of retarded theories being bandied around as scientific fact. I think the more we develop our technologies as humans the more we disconnect from reality. It's just like why we do such obscure movements in a gym which have no basis in real movement or reality. Why the need to test some theory when there are people alive in the world today who show us the truth just by the way they live?

Smiley face just to show I'm happy

Well that was an interesting post. I do know once you have adopted a Gary Pollan mindset you want to scream at any nutritionist or diet expert that advises eating a balance of carbohydrates and protein and fat and limiting intake. They have it all wrong according to him - ditch the carbs and he has "solid scientific proof" but again, what he does not cover is how long a person can stay on such program. Forever? Never eat another another dessert again or even a small plate of pasta? There were some bitter arguments between Taubes and Dean Ornish (I don't agree with Ornish either as he is also Draconian - just about fats) and it seems that Taubes won. Taubes insists it is not calories or consumption - it's carbs. Fat people are not fat because they eat too much - they are fat because they store fat which is caused by too many carbs in the diet.

I think the reason low carb diets are so enticing is that many people don't want to give up meat and don't want to feel hungry so it seems like being able to eat all you want of meat and fatty foods seems to accomplish two things. You won't go hungry and you can let go of the guilt of about eating too much and gaining weight. It's not your fault your fat if only you had known about the evil of carbs. And now they have a guru who is lecturing medical schools and the medical community with his science.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:50 pm

flightisleavin wrote:
Well that was an interesting post. I do know once you have adopted a Gary Pollan mindset you want to scream at any nutritionist or diet expert that advises eating a balance of carbohydrates and protein and fat and limiting intake.

Do you mean Gary Taubes or Michael Pollan?

I think the problem is that they all operate using what Pollan calls "parking lot science."

You measure what you can see, and you inevitably decide that what you can see is what matters. Cholesterol is a classic example. It's the first factor related to heart disease that we could measure. So, the science got obsessed with cholesterol, and cholesterol became the cause of heart disease, and dietary cholesterol was what you had to eliminate. This is parking lot science. It's based on the parable of a man who loses his key in a parking lot at night. He spends all his time looking for it under the lights even though he knows that's not where he lost it, because that's where he can see best.

Some see saturated fat/cholesterol as the problem and others see all carbs as the problem. Problem is, what they see probably isn't the problem.

I'm with Bushranger -- I'm going to follow the example set by healthy populations. For me, it's those in the Mediterranean. Why them? I like the food!

flightisleavin · Post by **flightisleavin** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:59 pm

I mean Gary Taubes. There are several groups on the internet that follow Gary Taubes as the ultimate guru and his science is allegedly proven to them. In other words he made Atkins credible with his research so much so that he is now lecturing to medical students. They will not eat any grains or starch of any kind and opt for very high fat meat based diets as Taubes recommends. They would not agree with Michael Pollan as he advocates eating less meat.

flightisleavin · Post by **flightisleavin** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:11 pm

wosnes wrote:[
Some see saturated fat/cholesterol as the problem and others see all carbs as the problem. Problem is, what they see probably isn't the problem.

I'm with Bushranger -- I'm going to follow the example set by healthy populations. For me, it's those in the Mediterranean. Why them? I like the food!

I agree. It takes the joy out of eating. When I looked at those pictures from how the world eats the Italian and French kitchens were the most appealing for me. Why won't the two die-hard debating dietary groups look at the Mediterranean example? Or look at the way we ate 50 years ago - great grandma and grandpa - why won't they look at that style of eating where they never thought about fat, calories or (shudder) carbs. They just ate normal meals and had dessert with Sunday dinner and never heard of a Weight Watcher's dessert bar or microwave popcorn.

It would be interesting if they did a controlled study of No S dieters with Atkins, Ornish and WW just to see who could maintain it the longest and which group enjoyed meal time the most.

Post by **reinhard** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:13 pm

I have a number of issues with low carb (besides the fact that it just seems really unpleasant, which alone would be enough to convince me not to do it):

1) Even if it does theoretically work, and I don't deny that it seems to work in some cases, it doesn't seem like many people can stick with it. I don't think any diet plan got more attention and adherents during the last decade and we're fatter than ever before. You could argue, "well, they're not doing it right!" but if no one can do it right, it's not actually helpful, is it?

2) Most human populations ate very high carb diets until recently -- and were thin. We're already eating low carb by historical standards. And I don't want to get into an argument about paleolithic cavemen. There's no reason to look into the remote past when facts about diet and digestive tracts are debatable. Just look at grandma and great grandma, whether they lived in Italy or India or China, they got most of their calories from starch and were thin. And likely not "whole grain" starches. People have been removing the bran from grains for a long, long time (it reduces spoilage). The (thin) French are famous for their white french bread, the (thin) Italians for their white flour paste. And nobody in (thin) Asia (except a few western expats, maybe) eats brown rice. From what I understand, it was only in the 19th century that people in the West even got the idea to leave the husks on rice, for nutritional reasons. I'm not saying it's not better to eat whole grains, and I personally like brown rice, just that it's not the silver bullet it's made out to be.

3) if we were actually by some collective act of self abnegation on a global scale manage to eat low carb, and "learn to like lamb chops" as a commenter to the interview I did on the Livin la vida low carb show put it, the ecological consequences would be devastating. Eating like a cave man is fine when there are only a few tens of thousands of you on the whole planet. When there are billions, low carb means very, very high carbon. Maybe we'll be thinner, but we'll all be dead. In a sense, I'm not too worried about this because I don't think many people are ever going to be able to adhere to the strict low carb diets advocated by these gurus. But in another sense, since we are already (though not very effectively for our waistlines, clearly) eating lower carb than our ancestors, it's a real problem now.

From a United Nations report I quote on page 71 of the No S Diet book:

global livestock
grazing and feed production use â€˜30 percent of the land
surface of the planet,â€™ â€ and â€œlivestock are responsible for
about 18 percent of the global warming effectâ€â€” more
than cars, airplanes, and all forms of transportation
combined.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:04 pm

reinhard wrote:
2) Most human populations ate very high carb diets until recently -- and were thin. We're already eating low carb by historical standards. And I don't want to get into an argument about paleolithic cavemen. There's no reason to look into the remote past when facts about diet and digestive tracts are debatable. Just look at grandma and great grandma, whether they lived in Italy or India or China, they got most of their calories from starch and were thin. And likely not "whole grain" starches. People have been removing the bran from grains for a long, long time (it reduces spoilage). The (thin) French are famous for their white french bread, the (thin) Italians for their white flour paste. And nobody in (thin) Asia (except a few western expats, maybe) eats brown rice. From what I understand, it was only in the 19th century that people in the West even got the idea to leave the husks on rice, for nutritional reasons. I'm not saying it's not better to eat whole grains, and I personally like brown rice, just that it's not the silver bullet it's made out to be.

I do like that white flour paste -- just like the Italians!

I think health-conscious Americans are the only people who seek out brown rice.

Jammin' Jan · Post by **Jammin' Jan** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:49 pm

In addition to Pollan's "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.", I also like Marion Nestle's advice: "Eat less. Move more. Eat your fruits and vegetables."

This fits in well with the structure of no-s for a healthy diet.

ThomsonsPier · Post by **ThomsonsPier** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:26 pm

I thought I was a bit low on starchy foods (I refuse to use the term 'carbs' because people keep leaping on it as the sentence buzzword and think they know everything you're about to say; if you're going to eat like your grandparents, you may as well use their terminology) until I checked the quantities and found I was eating tons of them. It was just that everyone else around me was eating even more.

All those who have tried to convince me that a low-carb diet is the way to lose weight are indeed thin, but are also incapable of no more than a few minutes of exertion before they turn red faced and start wheezing. I'd rather be slightly larger and fit, thanks.

Having said that, I weighed myself for the first time since Christmas at the weekend. I'm down to 145lb, which is something of a surprise (5'9" and male). Few people would regard me as unhealthy.

Nichole · Post by **Nichole** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:51 pm

Hmmmm, while I agree that highly processed carbs like white bread and french fries are bad for you, I do not shun carbs and have still lost weight. Without them, I am weak. I do eat LESS carbs, usually have about one carb-less meal, but I don't feel deprived. I get my whole grain Total and my bread like everybody else

. But totally cutting out carbs is so unrealistic and I don't know how anyone does it.

Mounted Ranger! · Post by **Mounted Ranger!** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:51 pm

I'll just chime in to say that my dr. recommended a specific diet for me that is supposed to help with ovarian cysts. The idea is this: very high protein, pair carbs with protein, plenty of fruits and veggies. I'm supposed to eat a lot of proteins and if I eat non-bean/legume/veggie/some fruit carbs, I'm supposed to pair them with protein. It's sort of like building meals with proteins, veggies, fruits and accessorizing with a non-veggie/fruit/bean/legume carb if I want.

I have no idea if this is helping with my cysts (I retest in a few months) but what I do know is that I've been the worst kind of insomniac for years, y.e.a.r.s!, and now I'm sleeping like a baby. Seriously, by the grace of God and eating this way, I am sleeping and that is something I haven't done in so long. I am rested and human again!

If you count beans/legumes/fruit/veggies, I eat a ton of carbs. For bread, rice, sugar, et c, I eat a few/week (and I always, always, pair them).

I don't know if I would have a hard time following this if it weren't for the sleep. However, with sleep hanging in the balance, I'm committed. Frankly, though, I dont' really find it hard. The 4th of July was the first holiday and I only found it a moderate struggle.

Thanksgiving will probably be fine, but Christmas? I may struggle but then a few sleepless nights will probably remind me.

So, that's my fwiw.

kccc · Post by **kccc** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:16 pm

Rebeccca wrote:
If you count beans/legumes/fruit/veggies, I eat a ton of carbs. For bread, rice, sugar, et c, I eat a few/week (and I always, always, pair them).

That's what makes the discussion so difficult... IMHO, a "low carb" diet that includes all those things is pretty reasonable. But if those things are off-limits, I think it's fairly extreme and a little scary. (Gotta have my fruits and veggies!)

How interesting that this diet helps your insomnia! (I sometimes have issues with that too.) And would you report back on whether it's had the desired health benefits with regard to the cysts?

Bushranger · Post by **Bushranger** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:51 pm

Most low carb diets refer specifically to the breads as the problem and not what you listed there. Of course low carb is complete horse dung when you look at it on a global scale of health and bluezones (longevity hotspots).

I personally think the real issue with carbs is not the carbs themselves but the foods we tend to get them from in the Western world these days. French fries and cream buns come to mind.

All the foods you just listed are awesomely good for you. Forget the carbs or not rubbish and eat them for good health.

bonnieUK · Post by **bonnieUK** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:19 pm

Rebeccca wrote:I'll just chime in to say that my dr. recommended a specific diet for me that is supposed to help with ovarian cysts. The idea is this: very high protein, pair carbs with protein, plenty of fruits and veggies. I'm supposed to eat a lot of proteins and if I eat non-bean/legume/veggie/some fruit carbs, I'm supposed to pair them with protein.

Hi Rebecca, this sounds a bit like "The Shwarzbein Principle" which would make sense as Scharzbein is an endocrinologist (and I think she suffered from PCOS in the past too, something she said was aggravated by her "sugar junkie" teenage diet).

That is one of the more sensible of the restricted carb plans IMHO (can't really call it low carb, because pretty much all carbs are allowed apart from refined sugar and fake sugars).

I read her book recently and the most useful thing I took from that is the idea that if you ensure each meal is balanced (includes protein, fats, carbs & veggies) you can have more stable energy levels and feel more satieted. I guess that is a similar concept to the Zone diet, but without all the counting.

Just a side note *rant alert* I've read a bit about the Zone diet and the thing that bothers me is that bread is not allowed, but Zone diet bars containing cane sugar are?

also butter is not allowed because it is saturated fat (and therefore being in a 5 mile radius of it will kill you apparently) and yet for hundreds of years people ate bread and butter everyday and didn't seem to do too badly *end of rant*

Bushranger · Post by **Bushranger** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:32 am

bonnieUK wrote:Just a side note *rant alert* I've read a bit about the Zone diet and the thing that bothers me is that bread is not allowed, but Zone diet bars containing cane sugar are? also butter is not allowed because it is saturated fat (and therefore being in a 5 mile radius of it will kill you apparently) and yet for hundreds of years people ate bread and butter everyday and didn't seem to do too badly *end of rant*

Sounds shonky no doubt. No bread but you're ok to eat OUR sugary replacement bars?

Sounds like a typical diet industry money spinner. As for the butter, I only eat butter and never touch any of the margarine replacements. They are plastic toxic filth in my opinion.

Thalia · Post by **Thalia** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:45 pm

Any diet guru or organization that sells its own branded food-replacement products immediately loses any shred of credibility in my mind -- that knocks out Weight Watchers, Atkins, and the Zone immediately. I think Ornish sells soups or something, too, doesn't he? I'm not sure about that one, though.

I mean, talk about a conflict of interest!

The Great Fatsby · Post by **The Great Fatsby** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:26 pm

Rebecca,

I am a terrible insomniac, too. I generally get to sleep without any problem, but I wake up after a few hours and am pacing for a few hours in the middle of the night. I would love to hear more about how you eat and how it has helped you sleep better. Can you give a set of menus for a typical day so that I can get a better idea? Thanks!

Fatsby

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:38 pm

Thalia wrote:Any diet guru or organization that sells its own branded food-replacement products immediately loses any shred of credibility in my mind -- that knocks out Weight Watchers, Atkins, and the Zone immediately. I think Ornish sells soups or something, too, doesn't he? I'm not sure about that one, though.

I mean, talk about a conflict of interest!

I'm with you on that.

Ornish was affiliated with some kind of frozen meals, but I'm not sure that he still is.

Jammin' Jan · Post by **Jammin' Jan** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:06 pm

Dr. McDougall has a line of foods, too, I believe.

Thalia · Post by **Thalia** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:41 pm

Can you imagine what No S-branded diet foods would be like? I'm picturing, like, an apple with a No S sticker on it. Or a cheeseburger with a No S sticker on it ...

bonnieUK · Post by **bonnieUK** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:14 pm

Thalia wrote:Can you imagine what No S-branded diet foods would be like? I'm picturing, like, an apple with a No S sticker on it. Or a cheeseburger with a No S sticker on it ...

LOL I was just thinking the same thing, I was imagining "optimised oatmeal" bars (with no added sugar of course!), and for S days a big chocolate bar covered in No S stickers, to deter you from eating it on any other days

Jammin' Jan · Post by **Jammin' Jan** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:33 pm

That's pretty funny.

Bushranger · Post by **Bushranger** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:20 am

I imagine it would look something like this:

The caricature is curtesy of Zander Cannon from http://www.bigtimeattic.com/blog/labels/Fan%20Club.html. The rest is my work.

Jammin' Jan · Post by **Jammin' Jan** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:22 am

Good job! You get a gold star on your forehead!

gratefuldeb67 · Post by **gratefuldeb67** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:24 am

Wow!!!!! That's *AWESOME*!!!!!
LOL

Looks just like him (when his hair was longer..)
How fun and clever!!!

Debs

mimi · Post by **mimi** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:27 am

You're really very good Bushranger...if this isn't how you earn your living, it should be! And I love your sense of humor!

Mimi

la_loser · Post by **la_loser** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:41 am

Absolutely hysterical--you have captured the essence of the man! And the plan!

BrightAngel · Post by **BrightAngel** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:52 pm

Bushranger,
Great Graphic.

Post by **reinhard** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:30 pm

I love it.

Now if only there were some cafepress type vanity oatmeal producer I could get rich peddling my own diet food.

Reinhard

gratefuldeb67 · Post by **gratefuldeb67** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:34 pm

There's a market for everything Reinhard.
I think it would be great if you had a brand of Oatmeal. Kinda represents part of your persona here on NoS, and would be both funny, and also, if you got a good brand of oatmeal, yummy and healthy!
And, it would be very *anti low carb*

LOL

Debs

Mistress Manners · Post by **Mistress Manners** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:50 pm

I'm thinking we need a cafepress plate with a big "No S" logo in the middle. Would be great to keep at the office.

Thalia · Post by **Thalia** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:55 pm

I do have a No S plate in my office! I mean, it's not a branded special No S plate, but I bought a pretty china-and-platinum dinner plate at a thrift store and that's my special plate to plate my lunch on. Cost to me: $1. Profit to Reinhard: $0. Sorry!

I think Reinhard may have shot himself in the foot by creating the first "diet" in history where followers don't need to send him truckloads of money.

I still think there's an untapped market for bedazzled sledgehammers, though, so maybe you can get in on that?

kccc · Post by **kccc** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:51 am

On the other hand, those of us who've been around a while have bought multiple copies of No-S... keep giving ours away. It's back on my "wish list" as we speak.

I'm grateful that it's reasonably priced!

I confess I bought the first copy mostly as a "thank-you" to Reinhard - thought I already knew the content from being on the website. But it was truly worth having EVEN for someone who'd been around a while before it came out.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:23 am

Thalia wrote:I do have a No S plate in my office! I mean, it's not a branded special No S plate, but I bought a pretty china-and-platinum dinner plate at a thrift store and that's my special plate to plate my lunch on. Cost to me: $1. Profit to Reinhard: $0. Sorry!

I think Reinhard may have shot himself in the foot by creating the first "diet" in history where followers don't need to send him truckloads of money. I still think there's an untapped market for bedazzled sledgehammers, though, so maybe you can get in on that?

Thalia wrote:Any diet guru or organization that sells its own branded food-replacement products immediately loses any shred of credibility in my mind -- that knocks out Weight Watchers, Atkins, and the Zone immediately. I think Ornish sells soups or something, too, doesn't he? I'm not sure about that one, though.

I mean, talk about a conflict of interest!

Would a bedazzled sledgehammer create a conflict of interest?

Bushranger · Post by **Bushranger** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:14 pm

I hope this doesn't turn serious. Of course I don't think Reinhard is a sell-out like that to market his own version of something. A totally new product is cool but oh how I HATE branded diet versions of food and training equipment you can get way cheaper unbranded! If the price is comparable and the product quality good than fair enough but they never are it seems.

"Yes that's right! You can get a [insert useless diet brand name here] meal replacement shake for only $25 per drink! Couple that with the great [insert useless diet brand name here] soft grip hand weights at only $50 each! Call now!!!!!!"

Honestly, those people have no soul.

winnie96 · Post by **winnie96** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:07 pm

KCCC wrote:On the other hand, those of us who've been around a while have bought multiple copies of No-S... keep giving ours away.

I confess I bought the first copy mostly as a "thank-you" to Reinhard - thought I already knew the content from being on the website. But it was truly worth having EVEN for someone who'd been around a while before it came out.

Me too, KCCC on both counts! Just about everyone has gotten a copy for a birthday present, and I just recently gave my last extra copy away. Will have to order more, as I am not going to part with my under-lined, dog-eared personal copy that I refer to quite often for information and inspiration! And yes, I bought my first copy as an opportunity to thank Reinhard, then realized what a great tool the book is even if I had gone through the website with a fine-tooth comb.

Loved the cereal box, Bushmaster, and lemme tell you -- I would buy a nicely-sized white plate with the No-S logo in the middle in a flash!

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:23 am

Here ya go Reinhard:

http://www.mixmygranola.com/

mimi · Post by **mimi** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:12 pm

I would buy a nicely-sized white plate with the No-S logo in the middle in a flash!

Me too Winnie! It would match my coffee mug! How about it Reinhard?!

Mimi

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:09 pm

mimi wrote:
I would buy a nicely-sized white plate with the No-S logo in the middle in a flash!
Me too Winnie! It would match my coffee mug! How about it Reinhard?!

Mimi

I wouldn't buy a mug, a plate, a magnet or a tee shirt. But a sweatshirt? Now that would tickle my fancy. Why a sweatshirt and not a tee shirt? I have no idea -- but that's what works for me!

Post by **reinhard** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:33 pm

I think I'm going to steer clear of branded food products for the reason bushranger mentions (seerch for the word "diet bar" on the nosdiet home page). His "Gedankenexperiment" image is funny enough without me running the risk of hypocrisy.

I'm thinking we need a cafepress plate with a big "No S" logo in the middle.

That I would be up for, but alas, they don't do plates.

(oddly enough, they have "pet bowls" but no plates)

If anyone knows of another site that does do promotional plates, let me know. I haven't been able to find one. I'm hoping that if I wait long enough cafepress will start carrying them.

They have a number of sweatshirts but they all seem very pricey (base price is in the mid 30s). I'd feel funny asking people to spend that much for something not at all professionally designed.

Reinhard

Everyday Systems

Discuss the influence of low carb diets here.

Discuss the influence of low carb diets here.

:)