Gregg Sheehan 29 July 2015 My qualification is simply an enquiring mind and a logical thought process, together with a willingness to put the theory into practice as an experiment n=1 (plus my wife and others who are in my circle of acquaintances who have chosen to follow me based on my results).
It seems to me that the most nutrient dense foods (for humans) are fats and proteins from animal sources. I have not found any evidence that carbohydrates are necessary (or even desirable) in a society that has plentiful food all year round.
My wife and I were both obese and gaining weight 3 years ago and I decided to change our diet to see if we could get back to a healthy weight. My research at the time seemed to suggest that we could lose weight by restricting carbs while still eating fats and protein to satiety. The opposite - restricting fat and protein while eating carbs to satiety just seemed to lead to more weight gain and other possible poor health outcomes.
I took over the cooking and cut out sugar, wheat, potatoes, and rice while restricting all vegetables to those that grew above the ground. I placed no restriction on the amount of dairy, eggs and meats that we ate. Within 2 months we had both dropped from 'obese' to the lower end of 'overweight' - in my case from 90kg to 79kg. We've been eating like that for most of the last 3 years now and I'm down to 77kg. My wife is hovering around 70kg.
I've had no illness (colds or flu) in that period and I have an active life playing golf 3-4 days a week plus whatever else I chose to do. (A bonus from being in a ketogenic or fat-burning state all the time is I don't have to eat during the day and can draw my energy from the fat I've previously ingested or stored without resorting to carbing up every 2 hours. I don't have anything in the morning, apart from a coffee with cream, yet I can drive an hour and a half to the ski field, ski all day and drive back before preparing an evening meal for my wife and I. Even then I'm not particularly hungry and can take it or leave it.
Enough about me. My brother was much more obese than I and decided to follow my path in this way of eating. Not only was he obese but he had been diagnosed (some 20 years back) with NASH or non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. His doctors had been telling him to avoid fatty foods and alcohol (which he had been) but it was to no avail. Within 3-4 months of restricting carbs he was back into normal ranges of weight and liver function tests. (I've attached his tests below). Another friend of mine has also been diagnosed with fatty liver and also followed my way of eating with similar good results.
I can hear the cries of 'anecdotal' as I write this, however, there are more and more of these 'anecdotes' happening every day, the tide seems to be turning against the advice to eat umpteen servings of healthy wholegrains every day and restrict fat and red meat while people like me embrace a 'fat-burning' way of life as opposed to 'fat-storing' ie. ketogenic as opposed to glucose driven metabolism.
Gregg Sheehan That isn't quite 'all' I have done. I've increased the nutrient density of my food so that I get ALL the nutrients I need with less calories. I've got it so that I don't have to 'measure' calories or whatever to make sure I'm in a 'calorie deficit' - my body does that automatically (well actually it now maintains a healthy weight automatically). Like · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 00:21
Diana Kidd Weight loss occurs in a calorie deficit regardless of the macronutrient ratio. The only nutrient % that is widely agreed on is protein @ around 1g per lb body weight. The rest is semantics within a calorie controlled diet. It doesn't matter if you have low carb high fat or high carb low fat. So yes, your weight loss is caused by decreasing your calories. Micronutrient intake is relevant for health but irrelevant for weight loss. Like · 3 · 30 July 2015 at 00:30
Gregg Sheehan You are missing the point, Diana. The high carb diet is nutrient deficient - that is why the body demands that you eat more food (or down regulate your output) when you are on such a diet. I'm on a zero plant diet for the last 4 months and eat when I feel like it and without regard to fat/protein ratios (except for what taste demands at the time - I might want some butter with my steak for instance). Like · 30 July 2015 at 00:39
Glenn Ison Greg hi well done on the weight loss but im worried about your hyperbilirubinaemia. From that blood test You are having trouble breaking down hemoglobin. I would see your Gp this can mean a serious problem Like · 4 · 30 July 2015 at 00:43
Gabby Suthern I've had plenty obese patients over the age of 70years reduce there blood sugars, cholesterol and reliance on medication and still eat carbs. The bottom line is cut calories, eat nutrient rich food and be mindful of your food choices. High fat diets stop people from over eating because fat makes you feel sick when you eat to much. Thats not an enjoyable way to eat in my opinion. Bring back the carb #Ilovecarbs Like · 5 · 30 July 2015 at 00:45
Diana Kidd Bahaha high carb is nutrient deficient 😂😂
Vitamin A, B, C, D, E all come from plant sources as does calcium, iron, magnesium, OMG do I have to list them all haha.
Oh yeah.. Vegetables are carbohydrates...
You are getting confused between high carb diet containing only processed foods confused with a high carb diet that contains plenty of fresh fruit and veg.
I guess the thing is, because I eat a balanced diet including all three macronutrients, I don't have to decide between whether I want micros to come from meat or veg - I have the best of both worlds cause I eat them all.
But seriously, there is no point getting too high and mighty about who has the most micros seeing as once your body has enough you piss most of them out anyway... Like · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 00:55
Patrick Kniesler Here you need to acknowledge the difference between a sedentary person and an actively weight-training person. Diana, you burn your sugars away at the gym. Gregg doesn't. The same diet doens't work for everyone for many reasons, but the main reason carbs fit into a diet is because of exercise.
I wouldn't like to think you are putting down people for not going to the gym when they are merely attempting to maintain a healthy weight. That shouldn't be necessary to maintain a healthy weight. Unlike · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 01:02
Gregg Sheehan lol, I've read much about fibre and you don't need the bacteria to digest fibre if you don't eat fibre. Don't you realise that fibre in the diet is what causes all the gut diseases? Like · 1 · 30 July 2015 at 01:03
Gabby Suthern Gosh gut micro-biome is cutting edge nutrition at the moment. Bacteria is thought switch on/off obesity, depressions etc etc. Its 70% of our immune system. Yes you do need bacteria and fibre for a healthy gut. And I work with patients with bowel conditions, they are not caused by fibre. I am wondering where you obtained your medical degree Gregg? Chronic gut conditions are mainly genetic based. My suggestion is to read research papers from credible sources. The internet is full of junk. Like · 3 · 30 July 2015 at 01:11
Gregg Sheehan I've got a pic of me playing my sport too Diana... no supplements, no fibre, no carbs.
Diana Kidd Oh gosh that's total BS. Patrick. My job is sedentary. I sit at a computer for 6-10hrs a day. I spend one hour in the gym 4 times a week. 4 hours total weekly exercise.
Last month I didn't train at all. According to you I should have put on weight - but I didn't because I understand the science behind weight gain and weight loss. Weight gain has NOTHING to do with sugar. Like · 1 · 30 July 2015 at 01:17
Gabby Suthern This is great publication to subscribe to for the lay person to understand basic health conditions. This article explains all about gut bacteria. Even though you think you don't have gut bacteria, we all have about 2kg worth of bacteria in our gut. Which, is highly influenced by what we eat. Fibre, fruit and vegetables play a huge role in gut health, which effects our physical and mental health.http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/290747.php
Diana Kidd So let me get this right. Greg cuts out half his food/ calorie source, loses weight and thinks it's because of the micronutrients in meat 👌🏻 Like · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 01:21
Gregg Sheehan Look, I gave my story in good faith, thinking the question in the original post was also in good faith. If you don't like what I've said, well that is too bad. I can see that you aren't likely to be really interested so please have a good life but remember, if you have problems when you get older, you can always try low carb. Like · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 01:21
Gabby Suthern I asked Gregg about his medical degree because he makes a lot of assumptions and claims about chronic health conditions that are medical. Clearly not understanding the pathophysiology of those conditions. People lose weight doing all sorts of diets, heck people lose weight juicing lemons all day. Kudos to your weight loss. Doesn't mean its the solution to every condition known to man, and doesn't mean there aren't going to be any repercussions either. No long term research has been done on this and there is emerging research currently occurring on animal fats and insulin resistance, that are not showing favourable results. Now we can turn a blind eye to such things, but personally I like to keep my eye on everything not just things that suit my bias. Like · 5 · 30 July 2015 at 01:25 · Edited
Gabby Suthern @gregg this study is about idiopathic constipation. This has nothing todo with gut health. We were discussing bacteria and its influence on health. Nothing to do with constipation in a group of 63 people. Like · 1 · 30 July 2015 at 01:29
Diana Kidd Any diet 'works'. From Isagenix to clean eating to paleo, low fat, low carb to lite n easy to Jenny Craig they ALL WORK if you stick to them. They work because they cut calories. That is how weight loss works.
An abundance of micronutrients do not cause weight loss - oh wait... All those starving POWs must have been fed a diet high in micronutrients right... 😑
Gregg Sheehan They took the cases of constipation that they couldn't find an underlying cause for and fixed them ALL with a zero fibre diet. All the ones that returned to a fibre rich diet got their constipation back. The ones that stayed off the fibre stayed constipation free. Like · 1 · 30 July 2015 at 01:32
Gabby Suthern My point with all the irrelevant links we are posting is that they have no point to our original discussion. For every link you post about fibre being negative, I can find one about it being positive. Thats why research needs to be weighed up in the context in which it was done, and what the rest of the research says. Like · 3 · 30 July 2015 at 01:36
Gregg Sheehan The other part of the story I didn't mention was that my wife discovered she had bowel cancer a couple of years ago, after a fibre-rich low meat and fat lifestyle. She had a much better recovery rate while on my low carb diet than 84% of people with a similar cancer. I also had a colonoscopy and there were no polyps (clean as a whistle) on a much higher meat and lower fibre life. Like · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 01:36 · Edited
Diana Kidd Actually Beau, I made no comment to how Gregg looks in his pic - I'm sure he's smashing. I just said I know how I got to where I am and he doesn't understand how he got to where he is - no reference to looks, abs or otherwise.
My pic I put up because you people seem to think carb make you fat - I eat carbs, I'm not fat. It was an example.
Gabby Suthern And Diana isn't saying Gregg doesn't know what he is doing, because clearly he has lost weight. She is disagreeing with the statement that Gregg made, that he has defied the laws of thermodynamics. Like · 3 · 30 July 2015 at 01:37
Gabby Suthern @Gregg how did you know she had a faster recovery? How did you measure that? How do you know if the people who also had cancer at the same time, didn't had a different stage of cancer, or different genetics or different level of fitness for recovery and the list goes on. Cancer is a very unique condition, no two people are the same. The only issue i have with this thread is the blanket statements. The truth is you don't know if she had a faster recovery, you believe she did. But what you believe isn't always the truth, we are subject to our own bias. I am sorry your wife had cancer btw. Its really a terrible thing people go through. I am not dumbing that down for one second. Like · 4 · 30 July 2015 at 01:41 · Edited
Gregg Sheehan Exactly where did I make the statement about defying the laws of thermodynamics - you are being deliberately obtuse - and beside the fact that the laws of thermodynamics are not being applied correctly or thoroughly in the explanation of human biology I have not got any argument with the idea that if I expend more energy than I take I will lose weight. What you are having trouble understanding is WHY I expend more or the same as I take in. I tried to explain it to you before but you ignored me. A carb-heavy, weight-stable diet is lacking in essential nutrients that the body will not be fooled about. You will either have hunger craving in such a state or you will slow down in your energy expenditure so that the body can either take in those nutrients or spare them. In order to get those nutrients, you will NECESSARILY eat more carbs than your caloric needs and therefore, gain weight. Or you can do without the nutrients for a few years until your body breaks down in some unforeseen way. I am trying to suggest to you that, like many animals that store fat for the winter, humans have the same fat switch, possibly linked to uric acid production, that allows us to store fat when we have plenty of carbs and keep eating them and burn fat when, over the longer periods, we have leaner times for getting food. In our current condition, with plenty of food available all year round, carb consumption simply drives more carb consumption for the reasons outlined above and has a bad end for us. (You would have to be blind if you cannot see what is happening in the general population).
Far easier to simply eat meat with no restriction and allow our body to automatically balance energy expenditure (as it pretty much does with any animal in the wild - and people following similar WOE to me). Like · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 01:57
Gregg Sheehan The oncology team at the time said she was among the 14% of people that showed as much regression of the particular tumour that she had. By the time they excised it they said it was no more than an ulceration. Like · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 02:05
Blocked by Pete Evans "A carb-heavy, weight-stable diet is lacking in essential nutrients that the body will not be fooled about. You will either have hunger craving in such a state or you will slow down in your energy expenditure so that the body can either take in those nutrients or spare them. In order to get those nutrients, you will NECESSARILY eat more carbs than your caloric needs and therefore, gain weight."
Simply not correct.
I mean it is quite possible that someone could have a higher carb (or any other macro split) diet that is low on micronutrients. But if they get their recommended serves of fruit and veg this is unlikely. I don't think anyone is actually advocating for a "high carb, low nutrient, minimal fresh produce" diet here or elsewhere.
People will be hungry if they are low on total energy and/or aren't getting enough satiating foods... usually foods that provide protein and/or fiber.
This is the issue we tend to have with the promotion of specific approaches to eating, the suggestion as you have made that over eating and weight gain (and associated poor health) are unavoidable via other approaches. It's simply untrue.
People can maintain a healthy normal weight and condition, or decrease from a less healthy, excessive weight on any choice of foods providing total energy is appropriate and protein is adequate. Higher carb, lower carb, whatever. That's simply the truth whether people want to hear it or not. Like · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 02:16
Diana Kidd 1g Carbs and protein = 4cals 1g fat equals 9 cals. This is fact. It does not change depending on micronutrient intake. The law of thermodynamics does not change depending on micronutrient intake. It doesn't matter what food you 'take in' the caloric amount for each macronutrient remains the same. No one eats solely to 'get micronutrients' or hit a micronutrient target therefore people eating carbs will not and do not eat more calories to get micronutrients. Carbohydrate consumption has nothing to do with burning fat. Burning fat occurs in a calorie deficit. Even if you ate all your diet in carbs, if you were in a calorie deficit you will lose weight. Like · 3 · 30 July 2015 at 02:25
Imelda Evans Gregg, I have no argument with your plan working for you. I am concerned about the long term effects of next to no plant matter in your diet,but if the weight loss is your main focus and you feel well, good luck to you. Like · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 02:27
Imelda Evans The problem I have with your stance is your insistence that it is good for everyone. I, for instance, cannot eat this way. I've tried it. A high fat and protein diet does not satisfy me and it makes me feel sick. I also think it's significant that your weight gain was apparently age related, rather than a lifelong issue. That puts you in a different category from people who are genetically predisposed to weight gain (for instance). Like · 4 · 30 July 2015 at 02:31
Imelda Evans Diana, I also think that weight is more complicated than a simple calories in/calories out equation. Obviously, that's part of it. A very significant part, but I think the body is much more complex than a simple machine and there are other factors in play. And yes, I'm basing that belief partly on my own experience, but I believe research is beginning to bear that out. I don't think there is any one 'answer' that works for everyone, not least because we often aren't even asking the same question. Like · 30 July 2015 at 02:37
Diana Kidd Imelda, this is what I do for a living. I diet down to a very lean weight for stage and I gain weight for muscle building in the off season. It's all done by controlling calories. Exactly the same way as I do for all my clients and all the other IIFYMcoaches do for their clients world wide. I have clients who started at 130 kgs, I have clients who come to me for comp prep. I haven't yet found a single body that doesn't lose weight in a calorie deficit and nor has anyone else anywhere in the world out side of medical conditions like thyroid issues. This isn't just some theory I made up, it's actually the way the body works...
Everyone seems to think losing 10kg is hard - we do it every year for stage - it's bloody easy when you know how and you understand the 'value' of different foods.
In terms of health, yes, the body is complex and that's why everyone needs to be treated as an individual because people do respond better to different macronutrient ratios - in terms of health and overall feeling of well being.
Ironically, in all this stupid thread and conversation that has gone on tonight, I actually prefer a lower carb, higher fat diet (notice I added the 'er' - extremes are stupid, pointless, useless and only cause health issues) where as I have several clients prefer lower fat, higher carb. For training in off season I prefer higher carb because carbs are the body's preferred fuel source.
CONTEXT is important.
What is irritating is people who think because they lost a few kgs they have found 'THE' magical answer to weight loss. ALL diets work. Because ALL diets put people in a calorie deficit. Like · 5 · 30 July 2015 at 02:58 · Edited
Patrick Kniesler Diana, how much effort would you say the programs you recommend require? How different from "3 square meals" and the normal diet too lacking in fruits and veggies? Plain question. I want to personally think about how different a keto diet might be from the sick norm. Like · 30 July 2015 at 03:08
JoAnn Jean It's what diet you can stick to. And for many people high carb low fat is maddening because of the hunger & cravings. Keto for many people remove the cravings and subside the hunger making the deficit easier. Not to mention all the people with damaged metabolisms that literally can not eat carbs. Or those so addicted to sugar they must completely cut it out of their diet. Like · 30 July 2015 at 03:09
Gregg Sheehan No animal on this planet needs a formal education on what to eat for its health. Or when to breathe, or how to exercise. Since 'formal education' started meddling in these things there has been an increase in obesity and a decrease in health. Like · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 08:54
Gabby Suthern "Defying the laws of thermodynamics"- originally you said in so many words that your diet doesn't create an energy deficit, that the energy balance doesn't apply to your particular diet. Your original comments did say that back to Diana, hence why this whole thread started. And Diana has been explaining ever since that it's not possible. An energy deficit needed to be created some where, that's just how metabolism and physics work.
In addition you said the high fat diet, caused your wife to recover from cancer faster. However your comment following what the oncologist said that she was just one of the small % of people to recover. That is not the same as your original comment.
Recovery was Probably unrelated to diet, and more likely due to the treatment she had and prognosis of the cancer itself.
It's cool that your doing this diet, no one is debating that. But the additional medical claims, is not cool. Especially since you don't have a medical background spreading this type miss information is misleading. Like · 4 · 30 July 2015 at 08:54
Gabby Suthern The formal education and studying food happened because people were getting sick. Not the other way around. The dietary guidelines have only been out for 20years people where getting obese long before that. Heck weight watchers is a 50year program designed for sedentary house wives. So don't blame education or health professionals for people's poor individual choices of food. Like · 4 · 30 July 2015 at 09:17 · Edited
Years of yoyoing weight on unsustainable fad and extreme elimination diets.
Ending up fatter after each 'diet' in the long term because fads and extremes are impossible to stick to so when you stop the diet you put all the weight back on ... And some.
Having initial weight loss through 'cleaning up' your diet, then replacing previous carb volume with fat over time and wondering how the heck you managed to put all the weight back on and end up fatter eating 'healthy'. (Every paleo client I've ever had who doesn't understand the law of thermodynamics)
Eliminating foods and craving them then and eating a whole block of chocolate and tub of ice cream in once sitting then feeling guilty, ashamed and disgusted with yourself because you 'failed' your diet.
Going away on holidays and being unable to source the 10 'safe' foods you haven't eliminated from your diet - eating like a normal human while you're away and hating every minute of your holiday because you're a failure because you failed your diet.
Deciding to eat one of the foods you've 'forbidden' and finding that your stomach bloats and gets pain because you've created an intolerance to that food by eliminating it for so long - now you think you can't ever eat it again, and you're sad because you quite liked yogurt or toast for breakfast. (You can actually reintroduce eliminated foods slowly and not have this issue but people automatically assume they are now. 'Allergic' to the food and can't eat it anymore - a self fulfilling fad)
Taking Tupperware containers of prepared food to social gatherings, family Christmas, birthday parties - so they don't have to eat the 'evil food' at the social event - while everyone tucks in to a nice social feast, they sit there feeling wonderfully morally superior with their Tupperware of steak and a slab of butter while dying a little on the inside that they can't have their childhood favourite Christmas pudding for dessert.
These are just some of the ways fad diets are so difficult. They are unsustainable, they make people feel they have failed when in reality it is the diet that has failed, they create endless cycles of weight loss and weight gain, they make people fatter in the long term, there create feelings of shame and failure in people who eat ' forbidden foods, they aren't practical in social situations, they are impossible to maintain 24/7, they create cravings and binge eating and generally create an unhealthy relationship with food. That's a heck of an effort to got to to lose 10 kgs.
The alternative is learning how to fit the foods you love into your diet. It requires a little effort, perhaps 5 whole minutes a day, but certainly less than all the trauma above.
These are just some of the stories I have from paleo, clean eaters and other restrictive dieters. Like · 3 · 30 July 2015 at 09:36
Diana Kidd And, everyone of those diets and feeling and situations are totally unnecessary - they are created by the idea you need to eliminate food in order to lose weight or be 'healthy'. Neither is true. It is totally unnecessary to eliminate anything in order to lose weight and be healthy. Like · 3 · 30 July 2015 at 09:42
Diana Kidd I find it hard to answer the rest of your question. You can eat 2 meals or 6 if you want, so long as it's within the same calorie range. It's all down to personal choice you can eat meat and three veg if it suits you, or have a higher fat, lower carb diet, or have higher carb, lower fat, whatever.
But eliminating whole food groups is just stupid, unnecessary and unhealthy for weight loss from physiological stand point as well as in terms of creating a healthy relationship with food mentally.
I've been where Gregg is, and I never ever ever want to go back for the sake of my mental health and well being. Like · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 09:50
Ruth Boerger Weinekoetter This is such a interesting thread. Gregg, I'm glad this is working for you & that you're feeling well. Fact is though, that there are plenty of studies that show carbs are beneficial. No diet works for everyone or fixes everything. And the general recommendations do not advise you to gorge on carbs. Everything in moderation, hey? Like · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 09:53
Diana Kidd JoAnn, the hunger experienced on a high carb diet comes about because people don't understand food. Once they do, there is no more hunger on a high carb diet than on a Keto diet.
If you are hungry it is through poor food choices.
1) to blunt hunger you need higher volume for your carbs. For 23g carbs you can have 50g cooked rice or 165g sweet potato. That's a massive difference in volume - so if you're hungry high carb you have to look at low cal for carb foods - ie swap rice for sweet potato. That doesn't mean eliminate rice, it just means that if you choose it you'll be more hungry.
2) if by high carb you mean high processed foods, same thing. You can have a 1 tiny biscuit OR 165g sweet potato and 30g avocado for the same amount of carb and fat.
3) Protein is the satiating food, not fat. If you are hungry on high carb, increase your protein and fibre intake. Problem solved.
Gregg Sheehan Well, I've got to go to golf shortly but I've been challenged on a number of fronts and think I should address them.
Clearly somebody inferring that I was claiming my diet doesn't create an energy deficit was not reading what I said. When I said we didn't restrict fat and protein, that means we ate to SATIETY. The fact that we lost weight means that, in the presence of nutrient-rich foods, our bodies somehow decided they didn't need as many calories as they had been taking in. We didn't have to put any effort in, simply had to shop less (going to the outside aisles of the supermarket) and prepare some foods a bit differently. We didn't do any extra exercise. Once our weight settled down to healthy levels our bodies mysteriously stopped shedding weight and still managed (without any counting) to keep us in energy balance. What caused that?
I originally said that my wife recovered better than 86% of other people in her cancer category - malignant colorectal adenoma. When I was challenged on that I simply restated it the other way around at the same time saying it was the oncology team that gave us the figures. (If she was in the 14% of best recoverers then that is simple arithmetic to figure out she was better off than 86%?) Sure she had a small dose of chemo along with the radiotherapy to help shrink the tumour, but her tumour shrunk with a better overall shrinkage than 86% of people in the same boat AND there was no metastases or other spreading of cancer cells in the meantime. Since a ketogenic diet is well known for starving cancer cells then the fact that we were already on that type of diet when the tumour was discovered suggested that we were already on the road to recovery when the tumour made itself evident. Who knows, perhaps the thing that we had in common with the other good recoverers was a low carb diet? Not surprising when the medical profession here strongly advised against changing whatever diet we were on. I imagine that those on a high-carbohydrate, cancer-feeding regime would have NO chance given such advice. They would meekly do what they were told and stick with the same foods that were making them sick. Much like the dogma the pervades the medical advice around diabetes treatment. "Keep eating carbs, we'll treat them with insulin".
What is it with the 'formal education' thing. My information comes from professors Richard David Feinman, Tim Noakes, Prof Grant Schofield. Doctors Andreas Einfeld, The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D., Phinney, Volek and a host of others. Also the manuals Merck and Rome II. These are all impeccably credentialled. Are you simply trying to marginalise me because I don't have a 'formal education'? Certainly I've read more on nutrition and biochemistry over the last 3 years than most doctors of medicine do in their lifetime (apart from some of those listed above of course). I am also unhampered by institutional dogma that many nutritionists have to pay allegiance to or else sacrifice their diploma. I have spoken to more than one that has had to bite their tongue when their lecturers promulgate b/s. My brain capacity is sufficient to understand all of this stuff to a high level (as well as rocket science if that is needed) - thank you very much. Like · 1 · 30 July 2015 at 10:23
Blocked by Pete EvansGregg. What you happen to have is a selection of foods /eating habits that are conducive to a total energy intake suitable to support your current weight range. That's why you were able to lose weight and now maintain weight without calorie counting.Whether you count calories or otherwise, it's either the appropriate range of energy provision, or it isn't.
Micronutrient content has little or nothing to do with it, from a weight standpoint. Certainly important for good health and if you're able to meet your micro requirements I assume via organ meats, more power to you but for myself and I suspect many other people that idea is highly unappealing. To suggest that a higher carb / plant based diet can't provide those important micronutrients is just nonsense though. And to suggest that if you're deficient in a micronutrient you'll keep eating until you get it is not supported by evidence. There'd be no anemic people at normal weight if this was the case, for example.
I'm not even going to get into the rest with the "high carb cancer feeding regime" and so on, I'd be here all day and I have work to do. Like · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 10:51
Wes Suthern So, I do have a question: if no animal on the planet needs to be told how to eat, etc, why did you end up obese? If it is so inherent, why? Will you lay blame on someone else? Like · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 11:08 · Edited
Diana Kidd 'Our bodies "somehow" decided they didn't need as many calories as they were taking in'...ummm 'somehow'... You have got all your friends following your made-up-off-the-top-of-your-head 'satiety diet' and you don't even know how it works?
Let's explain the science if satiety...
Protein is the most highly satiating of the macronutrients.
If you cut out all carbohydrates you are by default eating more protein and will feel more full.
Protein is also the most thermogenic nutrient.
Does this mean protein has magical weight loss nutrients and that you should cut out a whole food group in order to not feel hungry? No.
It means you should make sure your diet has an appropriate amount of protein in it.
Studies have also shown that potatoes are one of the most satiating foods. According to your 'satiety' diet (because that's what your diet is solely based on - the desire to not feel hungry) then you should include potatoes in your diet because they will stop you being hungry. Like · 1 · 30 July 2015 at 11:07
Diana Kidd Have you considered for a moment that not understanding how your diet 'works' might actually be putting others in danger through nutrient deficiency?
It is not enough to assume that because you are eating food high in nutrients that your body is actually absorbing the nutrients.
The bacteria in your gut are partly responsible for nutrient absorption, as is the length of time food remains in the gut due to your fibre intake.
BOTH of these processes that lead to the absorption of nutrients require fibre.
But you're right... You are such a special snowflake your body 'probably somehow' has a special way of absorbing nutrients, just like it has a special way of being satiated and of losing weight that is different to everyone else because you cut a whole macronutrient from your diet.... You're a real wizard at this....👌🏻 Like · 1 · 30 July 2015 at 11:12 · Edited
JoAnn JeanDiana Kidd I understand volume... and I've done both higher carb in deficit and low carb... and low carb is just plain easier...
I agree protein is the only self limiting macro...
Gabby Suthern Lol that list of scientists have various things wrong. Lots of complaints in the literature about them and one has an on going court case. I'll just say one thing, then I'm done with this thread.
Lots of people in the past think they slowed or cured cancer with diets. And a lot of them died. Steve jobs & Jess Ainsworth as the two poplar ones of recent press.
I really dislike people making associations between diet and cancer. And no it is not common knowledge that carbs feed cancer. That's what we call pseudo science. It's a myth that prevails throughout the Internet. I am glad your wife recovered using conventional medicine. And I'm glad for you that you lost weight.
Having a formal education in nutrition would allow some one to poke massive holes in your argument, it is clear to me anyway. Have fun at golf. Like · 4 · 30 July 2015 at 11:16
Rebecca Russell You do realize the Aust Dietary Guidelines and the Guide to Healthy Eating have 55,000 citations behind them, including why the body needs carbohydrates. But I'm sure your internet education told you that's wheat growers association propaganda? I ask about your education, because had you studied biochemistry from an accredited university, then you would understand why so many of your statements are incorrect about physiology, despite what your internet people are 'teaching' you - how many of them sell books and diet plans..? Like · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 11:22
Diana Kidd Why do 'high carb' or 'low carb', JoAnn? What is the point behind it - weight loss? For weight loss it doesn't matter what your macro ratio of carbs to fat is so long as you are in a calorie deficit. There is no need whatsoever to go to either extreme in order to lose weight.
As for 'volume'. Please explain to me your understanding of this, and how you put it into practice, because outside of IIFYM/ calorie or macro counting which teaches you the value of each food, I have never seen volume put to use.
For example, what would you do to increase volume by swapping a slice of bread for another food .... Like · 30 July 2015 at 11:26
JoAnn Jean The body uses carbohydrates first because too high of sugar in the blood is toxic. Following the logic that that carbs are prefered over fat... well then alcohol must be the king macro and energy source because your body will metabolize alcohol before anything else. Unlike · 2 · 30 July 2015 at 20:57 · Edited
Kim Scarpelli And the first dietary guidelines were released in 1977 Thankfully the medical professionals and dieticians here in the US are more enlightened than those in Australia, and a low carb/ketogenic/paleo lifestyle for weight loss and health is becoming a part of the mainstream medical recommendations. It's been an uphill battle, but medical professionals are finally paying attention to the science and are adjusting their recommendations accordingly.http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/pubs/DGA.pdf Unlike · 2 · 31 July 2015 at 00:18
Lyn Baker Gregg, thank you for breaking it down so concisely. My daughter has similar liver issues and I believe she'd benefit from restricting carbs. She's also diabetic so this is a win-win across the board. Unlike · 2 · 31 July 2015 at 02:27
Marek Kiejko Diana and Gabrielle. Your folks advise people? People pay you for this? Wow.
The amount of incorrect info that has been posted here would take too long to go over and correct. I just feel sorry for your clients.
Don't get me wrong; I love carbs. Also, everyone is different, and some can lose on any diet. But, you folks feel know it all, and therefore are shortchanging people. Unlike · 2 · 31 July 2015 at 09:43 · Edited
Diana Kidd Your daughter has a liver disorder so you take the advice of some guy off the internet who doesn't even understand how he lost weight... 👌🏻
'Toxic' OMG when will the stupid stop. Sugar is only 'toxic' at doses of 400g + in one sitting. Vitamin C is'toxic' at 100g... If you think about that too long I'm sure you'll be dumb enough to cut Vit c because it's more 'toxic' than sugar - because you sure don't understand the poison is in the DOSE not the item. FFS.
Marek, put up or shut up. The fact you think a Nutrition Coach and Dietician are wrong and Uncle Gregg from the Googlenet has a point with his deluded ramblings speaks volumes.
I'm sick of you morons putting words in my mouth. So here's my words:
You can lose weight and be healthy without bullshit extremist fad diets. If you want to suffer unnecessarily from eliminating half the food sources available to you, go ahead. But stop telling other people it is necessary or THE magical answer to weight loss and health because it is not true and convincing others to suffer unnecessarily just makes you a bastard. Like · 1 · 31 July 2015 at 12:25 · Edited
Gregg Sheehan Now, on the subject of qualified nutritionists and dieticians: You would think that they would employ competent people to oversee the preparation of food in hospitals - the picture is of a 'breakfast' that was served to me while on a hospital stay a year or so ago - this is presumably what a qualified person regards as 'balance'.
Gregg Sheehan as it turned out I didn't eat this as I'd brought my own food, but the diabetic across the room from me (who was still hungry after eating his identical meal) doubled up with the contents of the photo. Like · 31 July 2015 at 12:40
Blocked by Pete Evans I don't have time to get into it right now but we have had the "hospital food" discussion a couple of times here in the past already.
Toast and cereal is a pretty standard breakfast and perfectly fine as a part of a balanced diet. Like · 31 July 2015 at 12:48
Gregg Sheehan Surely it should be a 'lightbulb moment' for carb promotors when they see that people with diabetus can stop having medications and get all their blood test readings back within 'normal' ranges when they stop eating carbohydrates? Like · 2 · 31 July 2015 at 12:55
Jo McMack If you would like your taxes to significantly increase, I'm sure the hospital could provide that for you. As it is, combined with lunch and diet, the hospitals provide a balanced diet and has minimum requirements on how much protein and energy needs to be provided to patients. I notice for some reason you are on a vegetarian diet. Hopefully that was corrected for you by lunch time. Like · 1 · 31 July 2015 at 12:57
Diana Kidd You took your own food to hospital because qualified people can treat you for your medical problems but qualified people know nothing about food... Oh that's right, because no one knows more about nutrition than Dr Google ... No, you're right. That's not a sign of disordered eating behaviour....please continue on Like · 1 · 31 July 2015 at 14:32 · Edited
Jo McMack It needs to be taken into consideration of the whole menu, not breakfast in isolation. Many things need to be taken into consideration when developing menus. Not just YOUR (our those who prefer very specific foods ) opinion. For example, the salt...See more Like · 2 · 31 July 2015 at 13:02
Jo McMack I think Beau you missed the part about THE WHOLE OF DIET BEING NUTRITIONALLY BALANCED. I think you need to stop cherry picking the things that you read. That may solve a lot of your problems. Like · 2 · 31 July 2015 at 13:06
Jo McMack The funny thing is, in writing this whilst sitting in a Hospital Food Services workshop which is full of dietitians and managers all talking about improving intake, quality of foods, and patient satisfaction. Like · 1 · 31 July 2015 at 13:12
Diana Kidd Yeah barbell I'm squatting has a higher IQ than Beau, And has a better grasp on nutrition. Time to train instead of wasting time on idiots. Like · 1 · 31 July 2015 at 13:17
Marek Kiejko Diana, your stating it doesn't make it a point. Please look up what an opinion statement is. Many of your "points" are exactly that.
As to putting words in people's mouths, your comment is the pot calling the kettle black.
I never said anything about Greg's posts. He clearly stated his credentials (lack of). I'm assuming he doesn't have "clients".
You two, on the other hand, claim to have clients, for nutritional (and exercise?) purposes. I didn't ask what your credentials were, nor do I care. The absolute best medical specialists in the world can be wrong (if they are lucky, they bury their mistakes, else they sue). So, to be clear: your stating it does not mean it is a fact. (It might be, it might not be). If this hurts your feelings, I don't care. Your arrogance deserves a slap.
So, my original comment had to with the fact you teach people. Due to this, you are held to a higher standard than the Greg's of this world.
Your arrogance and inability to even consider that you might be wrong is what is hurting your clients. Closeminded.
To be clear, I agree with many things you have said. But some of your conclusions could be wrong.
Sugar can be toxic at high doses. As can H2O. And while "the poison is in the dose" is a cute sound bite, it's not technically true. ("Dr" Google "Polonium". Heck, tell me how many cigarettes per day are healthy).
The fact about sugar (and HFCS, and fructose (while I love fruit)) is that it causes an insulin release in the body. Now, weightlifters have been "using" this fact for many years, there has been recent research that suggests these spikes may be detrimental.
Gregg Sheehan The point about taxes: Wouldn't it be preferable, in a publicly funded healthcare environment, for us to have less diabetes? Surely the tax burden of the currently escalating health issues related to poor dietary guidelines since the 1982 American ones (parroted by the Australian 'authorities') came out, would be much reduced if we simply stopped having diabetes? This is easily managed per the dietary management by Jason Fung in the link listed above - or are his credentials pooh-poohed by the 'great anointed' in this group as well? Like · 1 · 31 July 2015 at 14:09
Blocked by Pete Evans "Surely the tax burden of the currently escalating health issues related to poor dietary guidelines "
you argue from a false premise. if people followed the dietary guidelines the problem would be solved or significantly reduced at least.
the issue isn't with the guidelines but with a lack of adherence to them. although they are designed to be as broad and general as possible so in theory there is no good reason why people shouldn't be able to adhere to them with a little effort or mindfulness. Like · 3 · 31 July 2015 at 18:37
Diana Kidd Marek, you make so many false assumptions, get off your judgemental high horse. Gregg clearly states he has his ill wife and friends following his made up diet - he has convinced others to eat a certain way from what he read - and misinterpreted - on the Internet - if you can't see a problem with that, that's not my problem.
The 'poison is in the dose' is no different for cardboard, plasticine, polonium or cigarettes - though I suggest you don't eat them because clearly the dose is in the minutiae for some of those, as it is for some vitamins and minerals.
I have clearly stated on this post that I have a relatively low carbohydrate diet for part of the year. So I have no idea why you people keep posting your stupid fear mongering links. I have no problem with low carb for appropriate reasons - general weight loss is NOT one of them.
My problems are with the fear mongering, the blanket statements, the links to woo pedlars and charlatans, the half knowledge that makes you make giant leaps from what is actually said to what you think it means, the cherry picking of data and links, the inability to read studies critically and understand the inherent bias / methodological problems / and the misinformation being provided.
So I will say it again.
LCHF is not NECESSARY for weight loss, nor is it optimal. That has been my one and only point all through this thread. Like · 2 · 31 July 2015 at 19:05 · Edited
Diana Kidd "CONCLUSIONS: Trials show weight loss in the short-term irrespective of whether the diet is low CHO or balanced. There is probably little or no difference in weight loss and changes in cardiovascular risk factors up to two years of follow-up when overweight and obese adults, with or without type 2 diabetes, are randomised to low CHO diets and isoenergetic balanced weight loss diets."
Gregg Sheehan Hmm, the fact that it is a recent meta-analysis doesn't mean it isn't rubbish. The most obvious flaw is that it isn't even about LCHF - it is about LCHP. Perhaps your comprehension of these matters isn't up to the level required by this debate? Like · 2 · 31 July 2015 at 20:36 · Edited
Diana Kidd Hahaha OMG what do you think you replaced your carbs with - just fat? So you are eating what P170 C50 F200 LMAO.
So much for the high protein diet you said you had for all the nutrientzzzzzzz.
Gregg Sheehan I'll ask you again to cite where I said what you are claiming I said, even though I don't expect you to do so since you didn't the last time I asked you. You are putting words into my mouth (which seems to be a bit of a tactic of yours). You jump to too many assumptions and your lack of in-depth knowledge of the subject shows in your assertions. Like · 1 · 31 July 2015 at 21:40
Blocked by Pete Evans I was about to say... Gregg your position earlier appeared to be that it was the presence of carbs in any significant amount that was the problem. So splitting hairs over LCHF vs LCHP doesn't really refute Diana's point with that link.
Also... *sigh* self taught amateurs telling qualified and experienced professionals they have a "lack of knowledge on the subject"... *sigh*. It's not the first time and won't be the last time I guess. Like · 2 · 31 July 2015 at 21:48
As I think was stated earlier. You're talking to people who've advised many other successfully in accordance with their professional qualifications to successful outcomes in weight management and body composition. And you're telling them "nope it doesn't work like that", unless I'm completely misunderstanding what is going on here.
Have I misunderstood your earlier position that the presence of carbs ensured over eating due to nutritional deficiency? I can go back and re-read it all if necessary although I feel the discussion has long passed the point of serving any further purpose to be quiet honest. Like · 1 · 31 July 2015 at 22:04
Diana Kidd Gregg, you have learnt all your stuff off the Googleweb by your own admission, and yet you keep telling qualified professionals who have spent years at uni and who have learnt from the best in the business and who successfully practice what the preach every day with clients, they have no clue.... You might just want to have a little think about that.... Like · 31 July 2015 at 22:15
Gregg Sheehan I think any diet that has been formulated in the last 15,000 years is a 'fad' diet. The reason humans developed a large brain in the first place was because they switched from eating plants to eating animals. The reason that brain size, bone health, dental health (as well as other health) has declined in the last 15,000 years has been the fact that agriculture has caused humans to eat more plants and consequently more CHO. Even the so-called 'obligate' herbivores eg. cows and gorillas get most of their energy from burning fat - about 60%-70% (in their case the bacteria in the gut converts the fibre they ingest to fatty acids). Humans cannot do this and MUST get their fatty acids and protein directly from the food they ingest (early in the digestive process). Plants are a notoriously poor source of those essential nutrients and pale in comparison to traditional animal sources. (Try going out into the native bush in your country for a year and existing on what you can find - I'll bet that you will have most of your food in the form of animals.) We have evolved to live on the exact mixture of nutrients that happen to be available in animal form (in a nice convenient package). It is our attempts to bring CHO (a totally superfluous 'food' group) into our diet that has caused most of the problems that exist in our society. That is the BIG picture. You may not yet see it....
(I notice that you give low-carbers a hard time in this forum because they have struck out what you consider to be an important nutrient. Do you similarly denigrate vegans and vegetarians for their eating habits, even though they have eliminated what is perhaps the most important food group?)
I have cited a variety of scientific studies and credentialled people in support of my views - but it seems that even professors that teach nutrition to medical students are not good enough for some of the people in this group. Do people have any better qualified experts they would like to put up? Like · 2 · 31 July 2015 at 22:16
Gregg Sheehan The problem with 'qualified professionals' that are in your boat is that you are encouraged to believe the texts without doing any thinking of your own. That is borne out by your recent rejection of nutritionists that have 'seen the light'. Textbooks set stuff in concrete until their authors die and the next lot of authors get their chance to spout forth. (When I was at university in the '70s I saw a textbook for doctors that described how to treat lefthandedness). Like · 2 · 31 July 2015 at 22:21
Blocked by Pete Evans People in this group ARE professors who teach medical students. Several of them. You're referencing fringe types who go against the consensus, so the "appeal to authority" doesn't work here.
The rest... lawd I don't even know where to begin. True, plants aren't a great source for protein and fatty acids compared to animal sources. This in no way infers that they don't provide other important resources or that there is a NEED to omit or greatly limit them. The theory that we haven't evolved along with our changing eating habits has been addressed and debunked countless times. The idea that we're supposed to be carnivores and not omnivores is ... it's pretty far out there man. It is in no way supported by evidence.
As for denigrating people or whatever it was... I keep having to explain this from day one. From day one. It's about stepping in and saying "hold there a moment, that's not correct" when people are insisting that their particular choice of diet is the only one that can sustain good health and/or anyone not doing it is less of a person for some reason.
We don't denigrate vegetarians or vegans. We would suggest ways for them to achieve a suitable diet as best they can with the choices that they can work with. We would pull them up if they started telling people "it's the only way to be healthy and best for sports performance too". Like · 1 · 31 July 2015 at 22:31
Blocked by Pete Evans "The problem with 'qualified professionals' that are in your boat is that you are encouraged to believe the texts without doing any thinking of your own. "
That's a popular assumption amongst people with no formal education but it is the furthest from the truth.
I believe my own experience and the body of evidence and the consensus of more highly educated, more experienced professionals happens to confirm that what I do works for the reasons that I believe it does.
When I got into the industry the pressure was on to go paleo, clean eating, assume "dietitians and doctors aren't up to date, they're just going on what they read in 20 year old text books" and so on... I heard it all myself and got bullied and pressured to "get on board or be left behind". I DID think for myself though and none of it added up, none of it corresponded with my own experience with myself and the clients I'd had so far... and hell I've developed my own way of doing things from the ground up, but still based on the science as best I understand it and I have the support and approval of much more highly educated people and more to the point IT WORKS so I know I'm on the right track although I'll never stop trying to learn and trying to improve my system.
Rebecca Russell You actually believe that the nutrition, physiology and biochemistry textbooks aren't updated or revised over many years, never mind throughout a university degree in Nutrition Science?! Wow. They are, and we are required to stay up to date with current EVIDENCE, which means appropriately updated resources, or the universities will lose their accreditation. Not all health professionals stick with the sound evidence-based practice, that doesn't make them 'those who have seen the light'. Dr Oz is a classic example Like · 2 · 31 July 2015 at 22:45 · Edited
Diana Kidd No. qualified professionals keep up with ALL the latest research.
While they may have preferences for doing things particular ways because they have seen those things work for hundreds of clients, and understand why they work, they are also qualified to read and interpret all the latest data - and they do - to have the best knowledge possible to assist their clients.
No professional ignores research that goes against their practice, in fact they seek out information that challenges their knowledge because that's how scientists work.
To think YOU have 'found the light' on DR Google, and all qualified professionals have somehow got it wrong is Arrogant beyond belief - and dangerous to those around you - tinfoil hat kind of dangerous. That blind belief you know it all and everyone else has it wrong is so dangerous.
What EVERYONE is trying to tell you here ISNT that low carb is 'bad' lots of us use low carb diets for various reasons. It is that it is NOT necessary for weight loss, and that the diet you described which lacks fibre is not recommended for so many reasons already given.
I have access to all the latest Nutrition Journals. I get alerts every time a new study is done. I critically read them. I read what others say about them and I consider their possible applications.
You sir, are a fool if you think your 'light bulb moment' after spending a few hours on the net triumphs years of study and practise. I pity the people around you and I hope to god they have a light bulb moment that you are deluded. Like · 2 · 31 July 2015 at 22:58 · Edited
Blocked by Pete Evans and i might and "thinking for yourself" is great and you should evaluate and question the evidence and the consenus at times but that doesn't mean you can just adpot whatever alternative hypothesis your imagination conjures up and insist that it's true and everyone else just doesn't get it. That's madness. Like · 2 · 31 July 2015 at 22:49
Blocked by Pete Evans the thing is... people want us to be the bad guys because we run this page and we address misinformation.
we're not necessarily saying "don't do paleo" or "don't do low carb" or whatever else. We're saying... if it works for you and you're happy that's awesome and we're happy that you're happy. Whatever approach you're on though, if it works it's for two reasons... it comes to appropriate total energy intake and it happens to suit you.
That's all. That's all we're trying to say.
So if someone else NEEDS a different approach, let the professionals help them to find one instead of insisting "with their fancy book learnin' they don't know what they're talking about and you have to do it our way because [some reason that isn't actually correct]"
And if people come and just troll and insult people, I'll ban them. If people come and like "low key troll" just posting the same stuff over and over that I have to take time out to politely address lest someone else read it and not realise that it is incorrect, or whatever... I'll eventually ban them for that too.
And then months later those trolls still have a vendetta against us and try recruit new people to come and cause trouble... and the new people go "actually a pretty good page and a reasonable admin" heh heh heh. So that's nice isn't it? :D Like · 4 · 31 July 2015 at 23:19
Gregg Sheehan I take it when the Aussie guidelines change to reflect the latest changes in the 2015 American ones, you guys will also change your stance on cholesterol, fats and salt? Like · 1 · 31 July 2015 at 23:19
Gregg Sheehan Well, I admit I have made an assumption here and that is that the Oz guidelines (like the Kiwi ones) parrot what used to be the American ones. I'm guessing that your ones still counsel the avoidance of cholesterol in the diet as well as limiting the fats and also salt. I stand to be corrected on that of course. Like · 31 July 2015 at 23:34
Blocked by Pete Evans Fats are "limited" yes, but as best I understand it only in the interests of being conducive to non excessive total energy while leaving room for other sources of important nutrients. Certainly not "limited" in the same way that added sugar is limited, for example. Like · 31 July 2015 at 23:39
Kate Snow Does anyone challenging the guidelines, actually read the blasted guidelines?!! Its limit saturated fat, sugar salt and alcohol. saturatedhttps://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/the_guidelines/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines.pdf Like · 3 · 31 July 2015 at 23:46
Rebecca Russell Current guidelines recommend limiting saturated fat intake, and swapping for mono and polyunsaturated FAs. Added salt is an issue here, as even 90-something% of children consume over the Upper Level of Sodium (based on No Observed Adverse Effects, particularly in relation to hypertension) Like · 1 · 31 July 2015 at 23:50
Jo McMack I think perhaps someone needs to go and educate themselves on the current dietary guidelines and recommendations made by the heart foundation before continuing to comment. Like · 1 · 31 July 2015 at 23:53
Dave Hargreaves Is it good that guidelines have been changed to reflect a greater understanding of the body of evidence and are not just a static document just made up by people who refuse to consider any other ideas?
Or is it bad because them being changed implies they were previously wrong, which means they're probably still wrong and we should therefore just make up whatever "facts" best appeal to us and ignore any qualified advice?
Kate Snow Also the current guidelines focus predominantly on foods, rather than nutrients. This makes it less confusing for the general public. People eat food. Like · 2 · 31 July 2015 at 23:59
Blocked by Pete Evans Original admins were a dietitian, a GP, a professor of medical research, and me playing a supporting role. They all had to step down due to stalking, harassment and intimidation from people outraged that they would present evidence based information for example that it is OK to eat cereal if you like cereal.
The two "new" admins are both from medical backgrounds and one is qualified as a nutritionist, but not a dietitian. Like · 2 · 1 August 2015 at 00:00
Kate Snow And you'll find many people on the page who follow it are qualified professionals with expertise in particular areas. This includes many dietitians. Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 00:01
Rebecca Russell Nutrition Science is based on evidence, which is why guidelines change. Would you apply the same reasoning to astrophysics?
Made up "facts"? Are you actually serious? Have you worked in a science lab, do you know how research actually happens? I suppose you think the flu vaccine every year is simply a "guess", not developed with the time, energy research behind it to be as effective as it can be in relation to an evolving virus. I'll say it again, there is currently 55,000+ citations that support our dietary guidelines, and as more research is done, that number will increase to reflect that. ..edit-> I completely missed Dave's sarcasm above, but some people think like the the later of his 2 statements. Noted below 😜 Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 03:16 · Edited
Rebecca Russell Take cholesterol. On face value, it seemed reasonable that dietary cholesterol could contribute to increased lipid cholesterol. In the interest of public health, because solid research especially in humans takes time, the guidelines suggested limiting intake of dietary cholesterol. Fast forward to once the studies have been completed and replicated, and then recommendations change to reflect peer reviewed evidence, and not just one trial in rats, or 10 people. Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 00:14
you explain the situation well though and i think that's something that critics consistently miss. You don't want guidelines that just change constantly like a knee jerk reaction to any individual study, idea, fad or whatever else. It has to evolve as the understanding of the body of evidence as a whole evolves, and be contextual. Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 00:19 · Edited
Rebecca Russell Such a common thing to hear/read about nutrition - People are annoyed that recommendations change, but on the other hand they are annoyed if the information is outdated - I had someone trying to tell me a citaton about vitamin d status and calcium absorption was irrelevant because it was from 2004, which is "too old" 😵 Like · 1 August 2015 at 00:24
Only "their" experts' expert opinion counts. Only "their" supporting evidence counts and is unbiased.
I had rather a famous one discount a study I linked to concluding "whatever diet they will best adhere to is what to recommend" because it was only the abstract (somewhat fair enough) but respond by posting just a graph with no supporting document "proving" low carb is best, and I was supposed to accept that? Draw a few lines on a sheet and it over rules all other evidence and experience. Like · 2 · 1 August 2015 at 00:32
Rebecca Russell It's not the dietary recommendations that are failing to reduce the prevalence of obesity, surely you could understand that Gregg since less than 10% of people actually eat according to them. Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 00:36
Gregg Sheehan Quite simple really, it was the 1982 American Guidelines that told people to limit fat intake. This led to manufacturers cutting out the healthy fats like butter and lard and adding more sugar to their products, effectively increasing carbs at the expense of fat. I'm simply reversing that and getting rid of carbs and increasing fat - to good effect I might add... Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 00:43
Rebecca Russell Ah yes. Never mind about the rest of the socioecological model that's applied to chronic disease... We'll just sweep that under the rug. Much easier that way. Yep Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 00:45
Kate Snow Yes because Ancel Keys whispered in the food companies ear, "Make everything low fat by just changing it up with refined carbohydrates, and then sell it as healthy. When everyone is really fat we then execute Order Soylent Green." Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 00:46
If people WERE following them and STILL obese and ill health... we could blame the guidelines. No one bloody follows them though.
So should we change the guidelines to something people might rather follow even if the evidence doesn't suggest that's actually what's best for them? And since... to my way of thinking it would only be a more strict set of guidelines, surely even harder to "force" people to follow them?
The reality is... appropriate total energy, enough protein, fats and carbs as best suits you, good provision of micronutrients and fiber. Probably there's a million choices you could make to achieve this depending on personal taste, convenience, cultural influences, whatever else. The guidelines are a good place to start but if they don't suit people for a particular reason medical or otherwise, they can seek professional advice to find something that works for them.
And to me... a big part of the problem is we have all these different factions kind of insisting "no it has to be low carb" or "carbs are fine but not grains", "sweet potato ok but white potato not ok" and so on. And people go "oh fuck it i don't know who to believe and it's all too hard".
My own observation is that number of and severity of cases of obseity didn't really take off until after the low carb / atkins craze of the 90s. People have "known" a long time that low carb is the answer to lose weight and yet people keep getting fatter. That's a flawed argument but it's exactly the same as saying "people have gotten fatter since the guidelines were introduced". Circumstantial. Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 00:49
Gregg Sheehan For people to follow them you have to give them a calorically unrestricted diet that they find tasty and satisfying enough to fill them. That is what getting rid of carbs and upping fat does. Like · 1 August 2015 at 00:52
Blocked by Pete Evans They always go way back in time and pick on poor old deceased Ancel Keys and tbh I'm not going to stick my neck out and insist on anything one way or another because I just don't know the details. It seems to me though that whatever strength of evidence that was based on way back then, we've had decades to advance upon it. That doesn't mean "bolster the established doctrine" but it means question, refine, change as per indicated by new evidence.
If people were following the guidelines as they are TODAY to an appropriate total energy intake... there'd be no issue. The issue is people aren't doing it. Like · 1 August 2015 at 00:52
Kate Snow I'm not sure where the point with the American Guidelines is going, the emphasis was taken off low fat diets, not "Fat, Fat its the way. It's all we need to keep the weight away!" Like · 1 August 2015 at 00:53
Blocked by Pete Evans "For people to follow them you have to give them a calorically unrestricted diet that they find tasty and satisfying enough to fill them. That is what getting rid of carbs and upping fat does."
you understand that different people have different tastes not to mention psychological needs, right? Not even going to get into it again on micronutrients and fibre which is a dead horse by now. Like · 1 August 2015 at 00:55
Diana Kidd Because iextremists think 'low fat is no longer regarded as necessary' means 'everyone should have butter in their coffee and plants shouldn't be eaten because fat is the only macro needed for life'. Like · 2 · 1 August 2015 at 00:56
Rebecca Russell Gregg, are you a medical Dr? If not, I wouldn't go down that path. Step away from the Big Pharma conspiracy BS etc, and leave the medical advice to those who are qualified. Many people in my family are. What is your profession/career/job/life purpose? Like · 1 August 2015 at 01:00 · Edited
Diana Kidd "I promote an LCHF way for noobs but I'm doing quite well on a ZC WOE."
Isn't this the guy who said he doesn't offer advice to others because he's not qualified to, earlier in the thread. Like · 2 · 1 August 2015 at 01:02
Rebecca Russell I don't know one nutritionist or dietician who has ever denied that fats delay gastric emptying .. No conspiracy there - that's first year biochemistry stuff. Next. Like · 2 · 1 August 2015 at 01:03
Blocked by Pete Evans "Hey, you only need to eat meat and drink water, food shouldn't be entertainment it is FUEL!"
This is what it usually comes back to sooner or later in my observation. The elitist superiority complex over food choices.
Food IS fuel. All foods. So certainly include lots of the healthy stuff but also some of whatever you enjoy within the context of eating habits that are appropriate over all.
Diana Kidd Fat + protein = satiety. So the most important thing for you guys is feeling full. We got it. Thing is, you can do that without cutting carbs out or reducing them to ridiculous lows. It's called balance. Like · 2 · 1 August 2015 at 01:07 · Edited
Diana Kidd Beau, if your diet is primarily fat, you really need to have an understanding of the long term consequences of that. You'd have to be on over 200g Fat a day of you didn't replace some carbs with protein - the carbs in greens is negligible. Like · 1 August 2015 at 01:12
Blocked by Pete Evans Gregg if you ARE givng people advice to "get them started" based on your ... rather outlandish notions about human nutrition and absolute refusal to consider psychological implications in the name of all that is good in this world please STOP because sooner or later you are going to ruin someone's life if it has not happened already. Like · 2 · 1 August 2015 at 01:12
Diana Kidd I'll say again too. I love fat - Atlantic Salmon, avo, Mac oil, eggs, dairy, nuts, seeds, acai are all staples in my diet. No one is arguing fat is bad. Extremes just aren't necessary. Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 01:14
Gregg Sheehan I would suggest again that you refrain from the ad homena and simply stick to what you can prove as factual or at least has a preponderance of evidence. I leave my case to the 2.5 million years of evolution as the population study (complete with confounders). Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 01:15
Diana Kidd 'I would suggest again that you refrain from the ad homena and simply stick to what you can prove as factual or at least has a preponderance of evidence. I leave my case to the 2.5 million years of evolution as the population study (complete with confounders).'
Diana Kidd No Gregg, that's using knowledge of foods to make them work for you. I know you don't have that knowledge, and it makes you sad that you don't know how to include all the foods you love into your diet and you think the only answer is to exclude an entire macronutrient, so I'll take your insult as a compliment :) Like · 1 August 2015 at 01:26
Confirmation bias. Yes. I'll admit that I have one.
Having been overweight and unhealthy, started training but not getting anywhere due to diet, then learning how to address that, then becoming qualified to help others, having a great deal of success with that, having a reasonable understanding of the body of evidence that supports the methods I've used successfully, and the support of more highly educated and more experienced people than myself... it's quite a strong bias that will take... well... I'm not sure what it would take to convince me "that's not correct and it can't work". Do you see the problem here? Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 01:27 7
Gregg Sheehan What makes me sad is to see people like you, who think they know everything, on the verge of diabetes and Alzheimer's, wasting their precious time they have left trying to justify eating carbs Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 01:28
Diana Kidd Haha that is the most hilarious thing I have ever heard. The guy who cut out a whole macronutrient is concerned about me getting diabetes and Alzheimer's from one bowl of ice cream 😂😂😂 oh Gregg, so much entertainment 😂😂😂
Gregg Sheehan Yeah, Beau. I just eat when I'm hungry. Usually only once a day in the evenings. Since it is fat and protein only it doesn't take long. Leaves me plenty of time (and energy) for Facebooking.... Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 01:36
Kate Snow Btw Greg, yes I did skim read through the convo. I saw Diana and Gabby and BBPE post numerous links to actual scientific studies. All I saw from you was one scientific study. And videos from 'gurus'. And links to some blog called Gregg's diet shack (is it a stretch to think that might be your blog?) Like · 1 August 2015 at 01:38
Gregg Sheehan Certainly an early demise - although some of the people that are mean to other people might find themselves in carb hell.... what with diverticular disease, constipation, colon cancer and other nasty stuff... Like · 1 August 2015 at 01:39
Diana Kidd😉😉😉 you know you want them Gregg. Just admit it. You don't want to spend your final years on earth without delicious fried rice, sweet potato, roast potato and pumpkin, hot chips, BBQ corn, zucchini and carrot, Salads by the pool in summer, mums delicious creamy rice pudding, pop corn, ice cream ... Oooh, fried onions on sausages ... Life is just too short to spend trying to protect yourself from the bogey man. Enjoy the foods you love in appropriate amounts and enjoy your life again 😉 Like · 2 · 1 August 2015 at 01:45
Kate Snow Beau if you struggle with certain foods, and decide its easiest to avoid them, thats good for you. But its hard to say that is something that can be applied broadly to the population. Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 01:47
Diana Kidd You fear 'giving in' and bingeing on these foods when you see them as 'forbidden' or 'bad' if you know you can fit them into your diet any time you want them they lose their 'magic' appeal' I chose steak and veg over Baskin and Robins yesterday because I wanted a bigger meal for the calories. No guilt fear or emotion involved. Tonight I chose ice cream because I could fit 45g in to my macros - yep, that's a whole 45 tiny grams think it will be a wile till the diabetes takes control lol Like · 1 August 2015 at 01:53 · Edited
Kate Snow Especially when you have people here who work with others to help them incorporate foods they may struggle with like you have. And I get it. For you it ice cream, for me its salted caramel. I just have gone a different direction to you which works fine with me. Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 01:52
Dave Hargreaves I reckon the only thing I really get a ... well not really a craving but a pretty strong hankering I guess... is fruit now. Gotta have my fruit! Which I reckon is a good thing to get a craving for anyway, all that vitamin C and so on.
Diana Kidd Hot chips is my fav thing :) I hardly ever eat them because the cals use up too many macros, but I used to eat 4 large fries a day at Maccas over10 years ago...when I was fat. 4 large fries a day is excessive. No need to cut them out though - 150g home made chips once a month 👌🏻 Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 01:58 · Edited
Kate Snow Yeah flicking through it now, first thing I notice is that they haven't even bothered to address energy intake. They just keep saying proportion of energy intake and hope nobody goes, "Well how much did that energy intake increase?" Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 02:24
Blocked by Pete Evans "According to the loss-adjusted food availability data, Americans are consuming more calories per day than they did 40 years ago. In 1970, Americans consumed an estimated 2,109 calories per person per day; whereas in 2010, they consumed an estimated 2,568 calories (after adjusting for plate waste, spoilage, and other food losses)." Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 02:27
Kate Snow Wow so many confounders and potential measurement errors not addressed there. Also its all correlation (and not a strong study to base correlation on either), not causation. Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 02:32
"However, without specific recommendations from the AHA or the USDA/DHHS on total caloric intake on an absolute basis, the shift in the share of fat and carbohydrate is primarily due to an almost 65 g, or about a 260 kcal, daily increase in Americans’ intake of carbohydrate from 1965 to 2011."
So... increase in total calorie intake via increased carbs = people got fat. Fine. In no way suggests that people should all be on ZERO or very low carb as per Gregg's position anyway though. I don't think anyone here ever suggested "increase in total cals via excessive carbs won't make people gain weight", did they?
Still the quality of the study is dubious at best regardless. One year later according to the USDA they were suddenly OUT of alignment to their guidelines.
Patrick Kniesler No, but you have denied that eating carbohydrates excessively may be due to the effects on hunger and seratonin release if I recall. If people had been restricting their carbohydrates more there would not have been as much over-eating. Fructose doesn't trigger satiety to the same degree as glucose, adding more problems. I think there is middle ground for us in saying that being a responsible eater is important. One has to educate and decide for oneself what they need out of the varying scales of carbohydrate inclusion in a diet (sorry if you don't like the way that is phrased). Every energy source has characteristics and special effects on the human body. I think we need to recognize that carbohydrates are not little angel crystals delivering only love and goodness throughout the body. Unlike · 5 · 1 August 2015 at 03:08
What assumptions did I make that were not accurate?
If you are going to post about a study, don't just read the conclusion.
"Some weight loss diets widely promoted through the media, such as the Atkins diet, , recommend a regimen greatly restricting carbohydrates (CHO), with increased protein and unrestricted total and saturated fat intake."
Gregg Sheehan It's ok Vinnie.He was trying to get at me because, the way he sees it, people with my point of view (and there are a lot of us) sometimes bring up how the Inuit survived as a healthy civilization, virtually carb-free, until the white man turned up bearing sugar and flour. Then they, the 6000 kilocalorie per day, carb munching CICOpaths, start trying to say that Evelyn Kocur or Duck Dodgers says this or that about the Inuit not really being carb-free because there was glycogen in the meat. Then we low-carbers generally quote Michael Eades, that the glycogen disappears unless you immediately blast freeze the meat in liquid nitrogen as soon as the animal dies. I can see that the Carbsane demon has already been invoked in an attempt to discredit a perfectly good study I put up. ALL the studies they put up that show little to no difference between low-carb and low-fat approaches to diet ignore the possibility that we can eat LCHF ad libitum and lose weight, so they make the comparisons isocaloric. This, of course, totally defeats the point. Richard David Feinman got it right when he said, "If you are ok, you are ok, If you want to lose weight don't eat, If you have to eat, don't eat carbs, If you have to eat carbs, make them low glycemic index carbs".
Usually the Charles Atlas crowd bring up the Kitavan islanders as a group that survived mostly on carbs, but they don't mention that once you take these people out of their ancestral ways of gathering and eating food and expose them to white man's magic 'white' powders, their state of health plummets dramatically. One wonders what happened to the Australian aboriginals if it wasn't carbs? Like · 1 · 1 August 2015 at 13:21 · Edited
Glenn Ison Greg all muscle holds glucose. Its breakdown causes the rigor mortis 6 to 12 hrs after death you see in those csi shows. Anything below 0 degrees will dramatically slow it. Like · 1 August 2015 at 11:30
Gregg Sheehan Yes, but you have to 'flash' freeze it to preserve any of the 12 gm of glycogen per 1 kg of meat. Keeping the meat in a zero degree environment will not do it as it takes time for the meat to go from body temperature to frozen and by then most of the glycogen will be lactic acid. Anyway, that is largely a straw man argument against Inuit being in ketosis. Who cares what ketones they managed to measure in the urine 85 years ago? I'm in ketosis right now, but that is likely to be only 0.4-0.8 mmol at the moment because my fat ingestion percentage isn't really that high. While it measures in the blood it will not be visible on the urine sticks.
It doesn't matter, the point is that I'm basically in 'fat for fuel' mode all the time and creating all the glucose my body needs via gluconeogenesis. Since I don't go into 'carb-burning' mode, ever, I must still be burning ketones for fuel where they are needed in the brain and therefore, am in some level of ketosis (not necessarily therapeutic levels of 4.0 and higher.) As the body 'keto-adapts' it becomes sparing of ketones and doesn't 'spill' so many into the urine or blood, but simply makes them to keep up with demand (as it does with glucose). Incidentally, those that try to suggest that eating excess protein will kick you out of ketosis because the body will turn it to glucose have most likely got it wrong here. They make this statement because they understand that the body cannot 'store' protein and 'must' use it. They take this to mean that any protein over the level needed for the essential functions of the body WILL be turned into glucose. They don't seem to remember that protein can also be excreted. Gluconeogenesis is an expensive process (metabolically speaking) and the body won't bother doing it unless it is necessary to maintain glucose levels. It certainly won't do it to create more glucose than is needed so that it has to be stored as adipose tissue. That is the role of carbs and carb metabolism - to fuel the body as well as store some for later use (if needed).
Nothing in the above, long-running, argument/comments has persuaded me that our evolutionary advantage didn't come from eating animals (higher nutrient density). That our subsequent decline in bone, brain, dental, health and stature over the last 15,000 years is not related to eating plants (particularly grains) (lower nutrient density). That our further decline over the last 200 years is not related to the industrial processing of said plants, and that our rocketing obesity and projected lower longevity is not related to the erroneous messages in government sponsored 'health' guidelines urging us to eat less fat and more grains. Indignant protestations that glucose is used first in the metabolism and, therefore, must be our 'preferred' fuel, miss the point that it is only burned first because we cannot handle having much of it in our system. We are not used to it. Not like we are used to having a store of fat and being able to use that as we need. If we just feed our body fat and protein, as I have over the last 4 months experiment, we can live quite happily, without cravings, topping up our stocks of fat when convenient (our body being content to just keep burning fat).
My earlier points fell on deaf ears, ears that didn't want to hear because of the dogma that was blocking them. Instead, people have used ad hominem and invective and assertion (an assertion isn't an argument and a repeated assertion doesn't constitute debate). None have really tried to debate the points I made, just with the dismissal, (which really shows how weak their base is).
Although I've never visited the Pete Evans pages (I'm not really interested in Paleo), I can understand why the people here might have been blocked by him. There really is no argument against simply eating real food. I don't really care if people insist on eating plants, although I would counsel against legumes and root plants and grains. (Most of those have got defences against being eaten by humans and that is why we have to go to some lengths to make them relatively safe - but how safe are they if they cause us to become insulin resistant and then begin the cascade to diabesity and heart disease and digestive disorders.) I can understand how people might want to remove dairy from their diet, they may be intolerant of it. I'm not, so I can eat it if I want to, and it does help bring up my fat percentage I guess (although I don't measure it - I simply eat it when I feel like it over and above my normal ration of rump steak).
Anywho, I simply came into this 'discussion' because someone seemed to be asking, sincerely (although I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity now), for some science on benefits of ketosis. I started out with my story and found myself being attacked on a number of fronts. The 'experts' I put up were summarily dismissed as not agreeing with the group's confirmation bias, as too, the studies. You have to remember that most of the 'studies' are based on very poor observational data. (On both sides of the fence). The gold standard, double blind, randomised control trials are yet to be undertaken. Fortunately, some are underway and results should be out soon - thanks to Peter Attia and some altruistic billionaire sponsors.
The general tenor of this group seems to be to try and belittle someone who has undertaken their own independent study from those awful 'Interwebs'. Insulting people in this way is somewhat counterproductive to your case. Do you not realise that virtually ALL of human knowledge is now within the grasp of the ordinary citizen? When I was at school we were sat down in the library and our form master pointed to all the books and the seemingly vast amount of knowledge that was contained in them. He said it was his job to teach us how to filter through that knowledge and sort out the good from the bad, the right from the wrong. Well now the 'library' has grown exponentially in scale and it is accessible to anybody with a cell phone. Not only that, but we can form groups of like-minded people to discuss and disseminate what we find out. Clearly some groups are at odds with other groups. Some like to align themselves with the 'authority of the day', as this group does. Others are prepared to go against the flow when they detect that something is 'not right in the state of Denmark'. I've been a lateral thinker all my life so I'm used to finding solutions to problems that other (vertical thinkers) simply cannot visualise. I've had to learn to go against the majority - or shut up. I'm quite comfortable about leading other people (who don't want to think, either laterally or vertically) into a healthier, more efficient way of living - without drugs or supplements.
Back to the original post, I've provided the 'science' of my own experiment and that of those close to me, that ketosis is a 'thing' and can be used to good effect, either short term or for the rest of your life. My proof is that I'm still alive and in spite of the fact I haven't ingested any plants over the last 4 months, I'm not looking like contracting scurvy anytime soon. (The cascade of events that is known by the term 'vitamin C' and its necessity in a real food, non-carb environment is fuel for another debate in the future, no doubt).
I doubt, though, that any of the commenters in this group are really taking any notice of what I'm saying, preferring to simply try to bully me out of my position. I can tell from some of the 'likes' and PMs that some of the observers are feeling a little more enlightened and have had their interest piqued enough to go out and do their own independent research, and good on them.
Gregg Sheehan Glenn Ison, upon reviewing the earlier comments I noticed one of yours that I hadn't addressed. You seemed to be mistaking the liver function tests I posted as being mine. I mentioned in the post that it was my brother that had NASH and I posted those ...See more Like · 1 August 2015 at 19:33