Low fat or low carb? Which is the better way to lose weight?

Feb 25, 2011 By Laura Casey

A low-fat diet will help you lose weight. Or is it a low-carbohydrate diet? Pore over decades of research and dozens of studies over this debate and you're likely to be confused about the best way to go about reducing your waistline.

"I think lowering carbs is what you should do," says Heather Straight, a Pleasant Hill, Calif., mom of three who says she's tried several diets. "At least, I think so."

She may be onto something. Maybe.

Gary D. Foster, director of the Center for Research and Education and professor of Medicine and Public Health at Temple University in Philadelphia and his colleagues published a widely circulated study in August that followed 307 dieters and concluded either a low-fat or can help you , but a low-carb diet is, perhaps, better for "" values, or HDL.

But is Foster a convert to a low-carb dieting approach, popularized by cardiologist Robert Atkins in the 1970s?

"I think it's a disservice getting people to worry about the minutia of diets," Foster says. "There are pieces of dieting that we know work. One, track what you eat. Weigh yourself often. Make changes behaviorally that allow you to eat healthier."

In fact, many diet experts, including local doctors, reel over the low-fat versus low-carb dieting discussion. It misses the point, they say. Americans, 60 percent of whom are either overweight or obese, need to eat less and lower the amount of sugar in their diets, through reducing carbs and sweets. They need to eat real foods, not overly processed, sugar-added treats. And they need to think about what they're eating instead of mindlessly consuming whatever tastes good.

"Honestly, it's more than just a question of should you go low-fat or low-carb but more of the quality of what you eat," says Sooji Rugh, a doctor with the San Jose, Calif., weight-loss centers Greenlite Medicine. "Not all carbs are the same and not all fats are the same."

For example, saturated fats found in cheeses and fatty meats can contribute to heart disease, although protein rich diets are considered good for people. Carbohydrates also differ: The sugar and white flour in white breads are considered less healthful than the whole wheat flour in some wheat breads. If you are trying to lose body fat on a low carb diet, 20 to 70 daily grams are recommended, depending on your level of activity. People need some carbs for energy, and most healthful fruits and vegetables contain carbohydrates.

The promotion of a low-fat diet started in the United States around the 1950s, fueled mostly by Nathan Pritikin. Pritikin was diagnosed with heart disease and began his low-fat diet along with exercise and resolved the condition. He popularized the results in his 1979 book, "The Pritikin Program for Diet and Exercise." Low-fat diets became all the rage.

To lose weight on a , weight loss experts say total fat intake should be no more than 30 percent of total calories. The problem now, says Greenlite's Rugh, is that many foods in the grocery store that are labeled "low fat," such as yogurts, are loaded with sugars to keep them appealing to the palate.

"If you lower the fat content in the processed food, it tastes horrible unless you do something else, so they heightened the sugar content," Rugh says.

The World Health Organization and the American Dietetic Association recommend that calories from sugar not exceed more than 10 percent of our total calories, she says.

"You have one can of Coke, and you've exceeded that," she adds.

The problem with sugar is that, simply, it spikes insulin. And when insulin levels are raised, people accumulate fat.

"At one point, your pancreas (which produces insulin) will start wearing out and then you're looking at diabetes two," says Ranveig Elvebakk, an Oakland, Calif.-based doctor and nutrition expert who is a long-standing member of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians.

She likens the question of a low-fat versus low-carb diet to a nonsensical proposition.

"It's like, if I have a yellow car, what type of fuel do I put in it? It doesn't make any sense," she says.

Insulin spiked by sugars and carbohydrates - which are processed by the body into sugars - promotes weight gain, Elvebakk says.

"Ninety percent of the weight problem we have is caused by eating sugar, not fat," she says. "If you want to lose, gain, or stay the same weight, then you need to understand the mechanics of weight loss. And when you raise your blood sugar, you raise your insulin and insulin stores fat."

Perhaps the best-known version of a low-carb diet is the Atkins diet, which had a resurgence in the early 2000s. It's a common misperception that people can eat butter-laden steaks and lose weight healthfully. There are good fats and bad fats - fats in nuts, olive oil and fish are better than most other fats.

"We can eat a small amount of fat," Elvebakk says. "People need about three tablespoons of olive oil a day and some omega threes."

And the American Heart Association criticizes low-carb diets, saying the food restrictions in them often starve the body of essential vitamins and nutrients.

Dr. Diana Wright of Bay Area Nutrition, whose offices are in Gilroy, Calif., lives by the adage that if you want to lose weight, you need to eat less and exercise more instead of worrying about fats and carbs.

"You need to look at how you're eating now. Sometimes you can turn to a peer or a book, sometimes you need to turn to a professional to give you some advice about where you can make reasonable changes in your diet," she says.

She also doesn't want people to forget about exercising either. People are designed to be physically active, she says, and sitting hours behind a desk doesn't promote good health.

"We eat more now and exercise less. It's like you lose a job and you start spending more money. That's backward," Wright says.

Wright quotes popular author and University of California-Berkeley professor Michael Pollan saying Americans need to "eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

"People who control their weight also don't skip meals. They always have breakfast. They are exercising about an hour a day. They don't take holidays from their diets and they weigh themselves regularly," she says, adding that many people may benefit from a diabetic plan that limits sweets, promotes eating often and considers how often and when you eat carbs.

Lifestyle change is the key to losing weight, the experts say.

"Successful weight loss and maintenance is having the mind-set to do it," Wright says.

Explore further: Can YouTube save your life?

3.3 /5 (4 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Calorie density key to losing weight

Jun 08, 2007

Eating smart, not eating less, may be the key to losing weight. A year-long clinical trial by Penn State researchers shows that diets focusing on foods that are low in calorie density can promote healthy weight loss while ...

Recommended for you

Can YouTube save your life?

15 hours ago

Only a handful of CPR and basic life support (BLS) videos available on YouTube provide instructions which are consistent with recent health guidelines, according to a new study published in Emergency Medicine Australasia, the jo ...

Doctors frequently experience ethical dilemmas

15 hours ago

(HealthDay)—For physicians trying to balance various financial and time pressures, ethical dilemmas are common, according to an article published Aug. 7 in Medical Economics.

AMGA: Physician turnover still high in 2013

15 hours ago

(HealthDay)—For the second year running, physician turnover remains at the highest rate since 2005, according to a report published by the American Medical Group Association (AMGA).

Obese or overweight teens more likely to become smokers

16 hours ago

A study examining whether overweight or obese teens are at higher risk for substance abuse finds both good and bad news: weight status has no correlation with alcohol or marijuana use but is linked to regular ...

Taking preventive health care into community spaces

17 hours ago

A church. A city park. An office. These are not the typical settings for a medical checkup. But a new nationwide study by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research shows that providing health services in ...

User comments : 53

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Allison1888
not rated yet Feb 25, 2011
I wish there was a quick answer to this! I guess it's somewhat trial and error in terms of what works for each person.
pauljpease
not rated yet Feb 25, 2011
Just give me a metabolism monitoring device and a nutrient IV drip please...
Andrew_Zacharuk
5 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2011
There is a quick answer to this, which is simply: Eat what we evolved eating.

We evolved eating meats, veggies, seeds/nuts, and fruits. We did not evolve eating grains (refined or whole), fast-digesting carbohydrates are THE reason that obesity is such a problem now.

Exercise is not the answer either, when you are getting most of your calories from protein and fat, you can do very little exercise and still stay lean.

Look up the Paleo diet, mainstream nutritional science is way behind the times, held back by the outdated notion that consuming dietary fat makes you fat.

My girlfriend and I have been eating the way we evolved (Paleo) for about 6 months now, she has lost 40lbs, I have lost body fat and gained muscle mass.

The American Heart Association is doing the population a major disservice by clinging to it's "low carb diets are evil" stance. Nobody is losing any nutrients by not eating breads, rice, and other carbohydrates.

Ditch them, and your body will thank you.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2011
We did not evolve eating grains (refined or whole), fast-digesting carbohydrates are THE reason that obesity is such a problem now.
Humans have been growing and eating grains for 10,000 years. Rice is the primary source of calories for most people in Eastern Asia and they don't have an obesity problem. Italians don't a obesity problem and they eat a lot of wheat.

Your diet may very well work for you but it isn't because humans shouldn't eat grain. The key factor to any diet that is REALLY based on how humans evolved is to avoid treating every bloody day as a feast day. Which is really easy to do these days.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2011
Humans have been growing and eating grains for 10,000 years.


Humans don't evolve that quickly.

But you have a point that was discussed quite well in the 'Metabolic Typing Diet'.

The fundamental driver is still the insulin response to blood sugar. Humans do not need to eat carbohydrates. The energy needed by humans can be obtained from protein and fats.

Low blood sugar triggers hunger pangs. Carbohydrates will spike and satisfy that need, for a short time. That's why most feel hungry after eating high starch Chinese food. Even the Asians do. And they compensate by eating small amounts very frequently.
Pima Indians in AZ suffered type II diabetes by abandoning their traditional diet. Aboriginal Australians suffer the same fate.
Eat what your ancestors ate 10,000 years ago and you will be healthier.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.8 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2011
Humans have been growing and eating grains for 10,000 years.
Humans don't evolve that quickly.
We've been eating grains and fruits since out ancestors were small rat-like Voles.
Eat what your ancestors ate 10,000 years ago and you will be healthier.
Our ancestors did not eat a diet of primarily beef and bacon 10,000 years ago. If you want to eat what your ancestors ate you'd be talking nuts, fruits, fish and shellfish, land walking meat was more of a rarity. It was dangerous to hunt.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2011
walking meat was more of a rarity. It was dangerous to hunt.


Maybe rabbits, squirrel, deer, etc were dangerous for your ancestors.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2011
walking meat was more of a rarity. It was dangerous to hunt.


Maybe rabbits, squirrel, deer, etc were dangerous for your ancestors.

Dare you to hunt a deer bare handed.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2011
walking meat was more of a rarity. It was dangerous to hunt.


Maybe rabbits, squirrel, deer, etc were dangerous for your ancestors.

Dare you to hunt a deer bare handed.

Why? My ancestors learned how to make tools and weapons.
Wrestling a deer is easier than a 400 lb calf.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2011
Well my ancestors can kick your ancestors heinie.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2011
Well my ancestors can kick your ancestors heinie.

Ethelred

What does this have to do with the ridiculous comment made by SH? It's well documented paleolithic humans hunted large and small game animals and ATE them.

BTW, your comment about your ancestors is obviously false as I am here. They did NOT do what you suggest.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
What does this have to do with the ridiculous comment made by SH?
You have NO sense of humor. Which is not a startling revelation.
It's well documented palaeolithic humans hunted large and small game animals and ATE them.
It is also documented that many avoided the dangers of hunting big animals.

And you, as a Creationist, don't think there were palaeolithic humans. Did you forget that?
BTW, your comment about your ancestors is obviously false as I am here.
Can't read can you?
They did NOT do what you suggest.
Where did I say that? I said CAN not did. Learn how to read.

And get an elbow transplant. You are missing your funny bone. Ann Rand doesn't just rot brains. Elbows seem to be at hazard as well.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2011
What does this have to do with the ridiculous comment made by SH?
You have NO sense of humor. Which is not a startling revelation.
It's well documented palaeolithic humans hunted large and small game animals and ATE them.
It is also documented that many avoided the dangers of hunting big animals.

And you, as a Creationist, don't think there were palaeolithic humans. Did you forget that?
BTW, your comment about your ancestors is obviously false as I am here.
Can't read can you?
They did NOT do what you suggest.
Where did I say that? I said CAN not did. Learn how to read.

And get an elbow transplant. You are missing your funny bone. Ann Rand doesn't just rot brains. Elbows seem to be at hazard as well.

Ethelred

So you have no real point to make.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2011
So you have no real point to make.
Thank you for that confirmation that you are in deadly serious need of an immediate elbow transplant.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2011
What does this have to do with the ridiculous comment made by SH? It's well documented paleolithic humans hunted large and small game animals and ATE them.
Yes they did, but not as a staple of their diet, idiot.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2011
What does this have to do with the ridiculous comment made by SH? It's well documented paleolithic humans hunted large and small game animals and ATE them.
Yes they did, but not as a staple of their diet, idiot.

Sure.
murray
5 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2011
Evidence of eating grain/legume over 15,000 years ago is scant. Plenty evidence of game hunting. Look at cave drawings--no grains or legumes there. Many Aboriginal peoples excelled without carbs.

Canadian plains and coastal Aboriginals were low-carb: seasonal low-sugar berries. Lots of leafy greens and other non-starchy vegetables. Leafy greens digest largely into short-chain fatty acids. The Saalich got at least 30% of their calories from Oolichan grease alone, which is rendered fish oil, removing excess polyunsaturated fats, to be almost identical to stored human fat. Oolichan grease was valued and traded inland some 300+km. Early European explorers followed Oolichan trails to the Pacific coast. Plains Indians had Pemican, about 90% fat.

Aboriginals also learned excess protein is detrimental. In winter if they lived on lean rabbits, they felt sick and called it rabbit sickness.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2011
Evidence of eating grain/legume over 15,000 years ago is scant. Plenty evidence of game hunting. Look at cave drawings--no grains or legumes there. Many Aboriginal peoples excelled without carbs.
Cereal grains and large legumes were a staple in the paleolithic diet as far back at 23,000 years ago. This is evidenced by the Mousterian layers of Kebara Cave, in Israel.

Hunting of large game was used to suppliment the diet of paleolithic people based on the climate. Primarily this was done through spear fishing. This is evidenced multiple times in the geologic record all the way back to 90,000 years ago.

The big game hunting caveman was an exception based on difficult circumstances, not the norm.
Andrew_Zacharuk
3 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2011
Humans have been growing and eating grains for 10,000 years. Rice is the primary source of calories for most people in Eastern Asia and they don't have an obesity problem. Italians don't a obesity problem and they eat a lot of wheat.

Your diet may very well work for you but it isn't because humans shouldn't eat grain. The key factor to any diet that is REALLY based on how humans evolved is to avoid treating every bloody day as a feast day. Which is really easy to do these days.

Ethelred


Calorie restriction can work, exercising to combat the blood-sugar fluctuations also works, but that doesn't mean either are ideal! Grains hold absolutely no nutritional value for us, whole grains come with antinutrients and refined grains are empty calories.

On the other hand you can stuff yourself full of good protein and fats and never have to worry about calories or pumping out excess cardio.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2011
"Given the generally good preservation of
the plant assemblage in Kebara cave, cereals apparently
did not play any major role in the diet of Mousterian
humans."
http:/infolib.hua.edu.vn/Fulltext/ChuyenDe2009/CD221/42.pdf
Staple?
There is probably a very good reason farming started in the middle east.
However, the rest of the world is not as conducive for such plant growth.
If people wanted to live elsewhere, they ate the animals that ate the plants they could not not eat, and anything else they could find. But most contained little digestible starches and sugars.
Wild fruit is not the same as modern fruits. Ever seen a wild strawberry? They are about the size of a pencil eraser.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2011
Ever seen a wild strawberry? They are about the size of a pencil eraser.
Ever seen a protohuman skeleton? They were often under 4 feet in height due to random bouts of malnutrition.
Bog_Mire
3 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2011
problem is in paleo days we where doing mini-marathons everyday in the pursuit of our food. Today we stroll down the air conditioned rows, selecting processed fats at our leisure. I would say a "paleo diet" + zero exercise still = fat monkey; but a healthier one than the modern western fat monkey who views food as a substance to pleasure themselves with rather than mere survival fuel.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
The proof is in the data. Those who restrict carbohydrates, that limits insulin response, eat quality fats and protein, have better cholesterol and triglyceride numbers and blood pressure.
That would tend to suggest that such a diet is what the human body prefers.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2011
Those who restrict carbohydrates, that limits insulin response, eat quality fats and protein, have better cholesterol and triglyceride numbers and blood pressure.
Animal fats are not considered "quality fats" on the whole.

The recommendation is to avoid animal fats that don't swim or fly. A beef and bacon diet, as I said above, results in the exact opposite of what you're preaching. So if you are correct in your statement that the human body prefers a certain diet, big game hunting would be right off the table as evidenced by the effects of animal fats on the human body.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
Animal fats are not considered "quality fats" on the whole.

That's what the Inuit have lived on for generations.

"Game meat also has a significantly higher content of EPA (Eico Sapentaenoic Acid, a type of omega 3 fatty acid, which is a good type of oil, often referred to as fish oil) than domestic meat."
"Wild game contains more than five times the amount of polyunsaturated fat per gram than is found in domestic livestock, according to Dr. S. Boyd Eaton of theEmory University School of Medicine."

"eating moderate amounts of grass-fed meat for only 4 weeks will give you healthier levels of essential fats, according to a 2011 study in the British Journal of Nutrition. "
http:/www.eatwild.com/healthbenefits.htm
http:/www.kvoe.com/recipes_files/wildgame.pdf

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2011
"Most people, especially infants and growing children, benefit from more fat in the diet rather than less. But the fats we eat must be chosen with care. Avoid all processed foods containing newfangled hydrogenated fats and polyunsaturated oils. Instead, use traditional vegetable oils like extra virgin olive oil and small amounts of unrefined flax seed oil. Acquaint yourself with the merits of coconut oil for baking and with animal fats for occasional frying. Eat egg yolks and other animal fats with the proteins to which they are attached. And, finally, use as much good quality butter as you like, with the happy assurance that it is a wholesome—indeed, an essential—food for you and your whole family. "
http:/www.health-report.co.uk/saturated_fats_health_benefits.htm
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2011
Animal fats are not considered "quality fats" on the whole.

The recommendation is to avoid animal fats that don't swim or fly. A beef and bacon diet, as I said above, results in the exact opposite of what you're preaching
That's what the Inuit have lived on for generations.

When was the last time you saw Inuit peoples raising pigs and cattle? More Swenson lies.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2011
A high-fat diet, however, is completely healthy for a lifetime.

http:/www.second-opinions.co.uk/fat-not-protein.html

"Our meat was seal and walrus, marine mammals that live in cold water and have lots of fat. We used seal oil for our cooking and as a dipping sauce for food. We had moose, caribou, and reindeer. We hunted ducks, geese, and little land birds like quail, called ptarmigan. We caught crab and lots of fish—salmon, whitefish, tomcod, pike, and char. Our fish were cooked, dried, smoked, or frozen. We ate frozen raw whitefish, sliced thin. The elders liked stinkfish, fish buried in seal bags or cans in the tundra and left to ferment. And fermented seal flipper, they liked that too"
http:/discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox
Andrew_Zacharuk
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2011
problem is in paleo days we where doing mini-marathons everyday in the pursuit of our food. Today we stroll down the air conditioned rows, selecting processed fats at our leisure. I would say a "paleo diet" + zero exercise still = fat monkey; but a healthier one than the modern western fat monkey who views food as a substance to pleasure themselves with rather than mere survival fuel.


The ideal is a paleo style of eating combined with some anabolic exercise and a bit of walking.

Seriously, my girlfriend has lost 40lbs that can just about entirely attributed to diet, with pretty much no increase in exercise levels. She doesn't starve herself either, she stuffs herself full of good animal protein and fats, veggies, and a bit of fruit here and there.

This was over the winter too. In a season when most people pack on fat, she has lost so much, thanks purely to paleo eating.

We'll never go back to the high grain Way of eating, ever.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2011
Humans have been growing and eating grains for 10,000 years.


And we were already humans for about 2-300,000 years before that. The reason people in East Asia are slim is because they can't AFFORD to gorge themselves. Look at crazy Kim in North Korea...he's a fat crazy little cognac drinking screw ball. If they could they WOULD.

Fact is we got big brains eating meat, it's what we're EVOLVED to eat and process. We're also evolved to basically starve about three months out of the year...not sure anyone here is willing to do that to stay slim :)
Ethelred
not rated yet Mar 04, 2011
And we were already humans for about 2-300,000 years before that.
Yes, and we are still evolving. Much of the human race has evolved to digest milk even as adults. We have evolved to resist a lot diseases in the last few thousand years.

The reason people in East Asia are slim is because they can't AFFORD to gorge themselves.
Rice is cheap. Even in East Asia. And I mentioned that treating each day as a feast day is a major cause of obesity. What the hell did you think I meant by that?

Don't eat til you feel full every time you eat. Don't eat a wide variety of food every time either as it encourages you to eat more. Eat boring food most of the time. Grain is boring.

Fact is we got big brains eating meat,
Fact is your assuming that. We MAY have gotten brains that way. Mostly we EVOLVED them to process information not to waste calories and the idea that a new food resource magically produced bigger brains is one of the more idiotic ideas in anthropology.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2011
However the FUEL for growing bigger brains can come from a number of sources and meat is only one of them. A favorite of many is that early man was scavenging bone marrow as few animals can get at it and there is ample evidence in the way major bones were broken at early human sites for that. Later we got into seafood and that is a much better source of essential fatty acids than land animals are. Safer to get as well.

We're also evolved to basically starve about three months out of the year.
Not really. Africa is on the equator and the seasons are less important then in Europe.

not sure anyone here is willing to do that to stay slim :)
Lots of people are. They go on silly diets they found celebrity sites. Loose weight and then pack it back on. Bad for your health despite the way evolved which is an indication that we might not have evolved to handle annual famine.

Grain IS nutritious and its CRAP to claim it has no nutrients. Pure propaganda from the ignorati.

Ethelred
Nikola
not rated yet Mar 11, 2011
These comments are less than helpful. Who knows what the f**k to eat now.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2011
Grain IS nutritious

Unless one is allergic to gluten. Wheat proteins are suspected in causing some forms of arthritis (leaky gut).
The propaganda for grains is from the US govt that subsidizes grain farmers.
Some grains are better than others. Flax is quite healthy.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 11, 2011
Grain IS nutritious

Unless one is allergic to gluten. Wheat proteins are suspected in causing some forms of arthritis (leaky gut).
The propaganda for grains is from the US govt that subsidizes grain farmers.
Some grains are better than others. Flax is quite healthy.

There's a reason why grain was cultivated. Old world beer is one of the most nutritious substances ever found. Low alcohol content, very high vitamin content.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2011
Unless one is allergic to gluten.
Boy you make some stupid comments.

Since when is does that either:

Remove the nutrients
Make all the other grains go away

The propaganda for grains is from the US govt that subsidizes grain farmers.
Now that is extra idiotic coming from a farmer. You MUST be subsidized since you know so little about actual food.

You seem to one of the idiots that hate people that help them. Lots of people do stupid things like that. You take the money and then boost your ego by acting with contempt.

Now THAT is contempable.

Some grains are better than others.
So you do admit there are other grains. Try keeping that in mind next time you feel like saying something as retarded as that first sentence.

Flax is quite healthy.
Which is why so many people eat it. No they grow it for LINEN and flax seed oil which few use for food. Maybe for animal food.

I keep in mind which one of us is fat. It isn't me.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2011
Grain IS nutritious

Unless one is allergic to gluten. Wheat proteins are suspected in causing some forms of arthritis (leaky gut).
The propaganda for grains is from the US govt that subsidizes grain farmers.
Some grains are better than others. Flax is quite healthy.

There's a reason why grain was cultivated. Old world beer is one of the most nutritious substances ever found. Low alcohol content, very high vitamin content.

Partly because the little yeasties ate the sugar, died, and left their little protein bodies in the beer.
Humans benefit greatly by eating foods processed by bacteria: cheese, yogurt, beer, wine and the bacteria in ruminant stomachs help those animals digest coarse grasses into fine steaks and ribs.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2011
Humans benefit greatly by eating foods processed by bacteria:
I take it then you are completely unware that we humans have many pounds of bacteria in our guts.

Well we do.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2011
Imagine, Ethel agrees with God:
"Sprouted grain bread has numerous advantages over "enriched" wheat flour breads. These breads are made from the endosperm of the wheat kernel (the inside portion), which contains primarily carbohydrates and few vitamins and minerals. The milling of grain into white flour requires the removal of the bran and the germ. This results in the loss of natural fiber, bran and 22 vitamins and minerals. To compensate, five vitamins and minerals (thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, iron and folic acid) are added back in, "enriching" the flour. Sometimes calcium is added back as well.

Food For Life Ezekiel 4:9® Sprouted Grain Bread is inspired by the Holy Scripture verse Ezekiel 4:9. Our 2,500 year old prodigy is made from six certified organic grains and legumes, sprouted in filtered water with a touch of organic malted barley and sea salt. This bread is truly the staff of life."
http://www.foodfo...ed-grain
Malt is from sprouted grain.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2011
"we provide evidence for how the interaction of dietary lectins with
enterocytes and lymphocytes may facilitate the translocation of both dietary and gut-derived
pathogenic antigens to peripheral tissues, which in turn causes persistent peripheral antigenic
stimulation."
"Common dietary staples such as cereal grains and legumes
contain glycoproteins called lectins which have potent antinutritional
properties"
http://journals.c...98070afa
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2011
"Legume and cereal lectins alter the microflora of the gut
(Liener, 1986; Banwell et al. 1988; Pusztai et al. 1993b),
causing both inflammation (Wilson et al. 1980; Liener,
1986; Pusztai et al. 1993b) and increased intestinal permeability
(Greer et al. 1985) which in turn facilitates the
translocation of gut pathogens to the periphery. Kidneybean
lectin (PHA) is lethally toxic for conventional rats
when given in high doses (Wilson et al. 1980), but is nontoxic
for germ-free animals (Rattray et al. 1974). Thus,
PHAs toxic effects could be directly attributed to its ability
to increase the translocation of gut-derived bacteria to the
periphery. In the case of RA, dietary lectins may operate in a
similar manner to indirectly increase the expression of the
disease by facilitating movement of bacterial antigens with
arthrogenic properties to the periphery."
http://journals.c...98070afa
Ethelred
not rated yet Mar 12, 2011
Imagine, Ethel agrees with God
Translation from Marjon to reality. He figured out a way to distort the Bible to fit it to something I said.

Sprouted grain bread has numerous advantages over "enriched" wheat flour breads.
"Enriched" wheat is not in the Bible so you lied. Nothing new for you.

Food For Life Ezekiel 4:9® Sprouted Grain Bread is inspired by the Holy Scripture verse Ezekiel 4:9
I will buy Roman Meal bread instead. The Roman's kicked Judea's ass so I think their bread could be considered better.

Malt is from sprouted grain.
No Feces ShearLuck WOW I never knew that WOW. Usually from barley not wheat. The beer industry uses a LOT of malted barley and the pearl barley sold in the supermarkets don't work, based on personal experiment.

Legume and cereal lectins alter the microflora of the gut
Legumes aren't cereals. Getting sick alters the microflora. Eating beef does so. Eating ANYTHING does so.

More
Ethelred
not rated yet Mar 12, 2011
Kidneybean lectin (PHA) is lethally toxic for conventional rats
Good thing we aren't rats. We just fart.

Since you were talking about cereals and are now talking about legumes just as if you were still talking about cereals you clearly didn't understand what you quoted. A frequent occurrence with you.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2011
I keep in mind which one of us is fat. It isn't me.
This is basically the core of this entire argument.

Mr. Swenson, you are a fat man trying to give a bunch of people who aren't fat, dieting advice.

That's like taking driving tips from a drunk.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2011
I keep in mind which one of us is fat. It isn't me.
This is basically the core of this entire argument.

Mr. Swenson, you are a fat man trying to give a bunch of people who aren't fat, dieting advice.

That's like taking driving tips from a drunk.

I suggest you be more skeptical.

So no one has any serious comment about scientific research that describes how lectins from grains and legumes contribute to arthritis.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2011
So no one has any serious comment about scientific research that describes how lectins from grains and legumes contribute to arthritis.
No, and neither do you as above you show that you don't seem to have an ability to tell the two apart. Must've been a really shitty farmer.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2011
Scientific data strongly supports the connection between grains and arthritis and Crohn's disease.
But SH and Ethel assert grains are healthy for all humans and humans are well adapted to digest grain.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2011
The list of nutrients that impact Crohn's disease are gliadin(found in cereals),tomato lectin and alpha-tomatin, (both found in tomatoes and some other varieties of fruit), lectins (tubers and legumes), capsaicin (chilis), saponins (found in a wide vvariety of vegetables including Asparagus, Potatoes, some beans and some cereals) ,lysozymes (Found in Eggs)

Are you trying to tell us that you have scientific evidence that almost every plant based nutrient, and some animal based ones as well, cause Crohn's disease, fatty?

Crohn's disease is a genetic defect of the immune response. It is an autoimmune disease that targets intestinal cells.
If all you eat is meat and fat, you are unhealthy. As an individual, I'll compare my health to yours any day of the week.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2011
I lost 45 lbs eating meat and fat.
Great BP and cholesterol numbers.
I followed the protocols described by Drs. Eades in Protein Power.
How does SH define healthy?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2011
"The nine participants were sedentary and out-of-shape, but otherwise healthy. They ate a normal diet for three days, ramped up to a Paleolithic diet over a week, and then stuck to it for another 10 days. "
"Participants scored significantly better on almost all measures of health risk used in the experiment.

For instance, the average reduction in the best-known bad cholesterol -- low-density lipoprotein (LDL) -- was roughly 22 percent. "
"All nine had lower levels of another bad cholesterol, called very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL). All nine also had lower levels of fats known as triglycerides. "
http://www.ucsf.e...hic-diet
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 12, 2011
I lost 45 lbs eating meat and fat.
Great BP and cholesterol numbers.
I followed the protocols described by Drs. Eades in Protein Power.
How does SH define healthy?

By more than 3 numbers that are of little factual consequence in total overall heath. I'm not a medical doctor so it is outside of my experience to make that judgement.

You are also not a medical doctor so it is outside of your experience to make that judgement as well.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2011
SH: "If all you eat is meat and fat, you are unhealthy."

SH: "...3 numbers that are of little factual consequence in total overall heath. I'm not a medical doctor so it is outside of my experience to make that judgement. "

So your first statement is a lie.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2011
SH: "If all you eat is meat and fat, you are unhealthy."

SH: "...3 numbers that are of little factual consequence in total overall heath. I'm not a medical doctor so it is outside of my experience to make that judgement. "

So your first statement is a lie.

No, my first statement is factual. In judging general overall well being in specific delineation I am not qualified to deliver the medical outline of what exactly is considered good health.

More extremism from you. Don't you get tired of it after a while?

I'm not a medical doctor, but I can express conclusively that smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day is unhealthy. Does that mean since I'm not a doctor I can't express a well known fact? Of course not.