Fitness Minutes: (1,044)
75 5/29/13 9:18 A
What we have to remember, in spite of the conflicting evidence, old science vs new science, etc is that Russell's health was very poor and he made some choices, took a risk, and improved many of his problems. Low carb does not necessarily equal Atkins (which is pretty extreme). It means ditching the donuts, cookies, crackers, chips (things that get many of us in trouble), making choices such as a piece of chicken on a bed of dark salad greens rather than between two pieces of bread (also a good calorie choice). I'm just happy that Russell has a life again! Let's be happy for him!
Fitness Minutes: (0)
574 5/28/13 10:07 A
Thanks for the link. Not sure how that info was compiled but I tend to think it was based on lab observations and not real-world experience. The article mentions there's no difference betweeen the fructose in corn syrup and the fructose in fruit, which may well be true, however when you eat fruit you ingest fructose in a synergistic manner, not as added ingredient. In short, I don't think they know enough about how the body processes it as a constituent of whole foods to be dispensing that advice.
Upon further reading I find that the sucrose in maple syrup is a bonded glucose/fructose molecule. Does the body know the difference? Further research is required on my part. ETA: as soon as it's digested the bond is broken.
To answer your question, I think fructose is getting some heat lately in part because of it's connection to visceral fat. Fat Chance by Dr. Robert Lustig was a great book on the subject.
Lady - I can only believe that you think that all of her heart patients haven't lost weight except for the few who do low carb. So either, you think low carb is a superior diet, since all others have failed these people, or we have to assume that many diets work, and others who are under her care have also lost weight.
If that is the case, she should be seeing similar results in non-low carb patients. She hasn't and is not allowed by the hospital to suggest low carb, so it is a limited # of patients. She was just noting that only her low carb patients have actually had major improvements. I am sure getting my blood sugars under control, as well as my BP down have contributed to this, and I will admit that at 39, I am younger than her average patient. However, I am not even the only person on this thread who has had similar results due to low carb.
I seriously doubt that if 2 people out of 25 comments have major health improvements after starting low carb, that it is coincidental. I think low carb is the reason, and it may just be that people are switching back to a diet that we lived on, and thrived on for millions of years. We have eliminated most of our processed foods, if not all of them. Low carb reduces hunger. That should be a goal for everyone, since hunger is the greatest reason we overeat. A diet that does it naturally, makes it effortless to eat the correct amount. So we eat in the correct range, which was IMPOSSIBLE, on all other diets, unless you think obese people are not trying diets out as fast as they fail them. For people like me, this diet works. Same as if a low-fat diet was capable of keeping you in range. We lose weight, and this makes us healthier.
I think we can agree that weight loss by any diet will work to improve your health. I just think that low carb has faster, and better results. Many of her patients are hovering, not getting worse, which they tend to consider a victory. Meanwhile, I am dropping pills, and getting healthier at every visit. The statement that only her patients doing low carb were improving was a shock to me too. I really only care that I am getting better, but it is pretty interesting.
Also, you will find that if you ask diabetics about what diet, and how they are managing their blood sugars, you will find that the ones who do low carb tend to drop down into the 5.0-5.5 range, while the others who follow the most recent low-fat fad diet, tend to hover near 7.0. They follow their doctor's advice, eat oatmeal, and an apple, Subway for lunch, plenty of vegetables, some protein, and rice/noodles for supper, and they improve. Usually not enough to get off meds, or even get a normal reading, but REALLY, REALLY close. Of course, that doesn't help them when they go blind, or their kidneys fail, but it was close to being prevented.
I may be a unique individual, and no one else can have the same benefits, except for the one other person on this thread of course. If so, I will just enjoy the results that I have. I believe that they are replicable, and we can get past all of the sicknesses caused by the low fat fad diet. I think that low carb can do that, and prevent these diseases, that only escalated after we started eating this way.
You will keep following a diet that has killed millions of people, and caused obesity, cancer, and heart disease rates to skyrocket, since becoming the fad diet in the 1970's.
Low carb has been popular, but I don't hear of anyone who is dying from all of the supposed dangers of low carb. That is what has been debunked. Those dangers are just myths that get repeated over and over till people believe they are fact. If their were no health improvements to sick people, and it just kept healthy people at a normal weight, it would be good enough, right? The improvements are just a benefit. Sadly, many are waiting to get a serious disease, before they try something as " dangerous " as low carb. Then after they switch, and see huge improvements, you continue to tell them it is dangerous, and they should go back to eating the diet that caused their diseases, and has killed millions.
Personally, I don't care what you think. I have 11 extra years of life( and counting), and improved health, as proof that it has worked for me. I don't go on SAD threads and question their results. If they have good results, I am happy for them. I have no idea why you feel the need to question anything. If you don't believe in low carb, fine, stop questioning people who do, and are proof of it.
My point is: I was unhealthy on the SAD, diabetic diet, etc. .. and I am healthier on the low carb diet, and improving, despite all the nutrition myths. So, NO, the other diets don't work for me. My cardiologist just made a simple statement. I would think that even if it was just a coincidence, that anyone in her position would be interested in that fact. If it is true, the question should be WHY? Maybe the people who are trying low carb, all do something else the same that is the cause. We all got desperate enough to try a diet that we were told would make the kidneys fail, and brain stop working on a healthy person, which was loaded to with saturated fats, cholesterol etc. That was a drastic step, so who is to say that we didn't all do something else drastic?
That will take years of research to figure out, but meanwhile if you are looking, you can find many people who are improving their diabetes, BP, cholesterol, by doing low carb. We don't ask that you do low carb, but when we are sharing those stories with each other, it would be nice if you didn't start questioning us.
Edited by: RUSSELL_40 at: 5/27/2013 (13:13)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
574 5/27/13 12:18 P
Maple syrup has sucrose, glucose and fructose in it. Personally I don't see the big deal about fructose - it adds sweetness and doesn't raise insulin levels. It's not like people are ingesting it by the gallon so I think it's being unfairly demonized.
I found this article to be quite good based on my own personal reasearch. Sometimes you just have to take a blog post/article for what it's worth and not over analize it. An article like this might encourage someone to do their own research into why these thing may or may not be true.
Maple syrup has no fructose in it so I use it to sweeten anything I bake. I don't make sweets all that often though. Fructose specifically has been shown to increase visceral fat or belly fat, the worst kind of fat to have.
And low fat diets have been shown to increase your risk of poor vitamin absorbtion, depression and even an increased risk of cancers among other things.
Fitness Minutes: (27,630)
1,790 5/25/13 7:02 P
Russell, It is great that the Low Carb worked for you....and you have indeed reduced your weight admirably!! However....
I believe anyone who reduces their total weight by the amount you have--by whatever means they choose--will see the SAME HEALTH results!! Your results are not uniquely due to the Low Carb protocol you follow. The cause & effect has to do with the weight.
As to your Doctor's comments...was she simply stating that perhaps those who MAKE the considerable effort to follow low carb, and thereby lose the weight, are doing better than the patients who don't make any effort to lose the weight?! Or, did she specifically say that ONLY the Low Carb patients have ANY better health??? That doesn't make sense....
Again, glad it worked for you---but for most, it is too difficult to follow-- and not truly necessary for probably 95% of the population to achieve permanent weight loss. So how much Research effort, time, and $$$ do we put in to benefit a few?? patti
That article actually doesn't debunk anything. It lists opinions and refers to studies that mention the same ideas, but completely misinterprets and mis-uses most of them. For example, the fructose-glucose studies are talking about PURE fructose versus PURE glucose. None of us eat those. We eat compounds that are very similar to one another. "High fructose" corn syrup is still about half and half fructose and glucose, similar to table sugar and almost indistinguishable from honey. Showing that pure fructose causes more weight gain than pure glucose doesn't tell us anything about the actual sugars we consume, and it tells us even less about how calories from sugar compare to calories from other foods. (Not that sugar is good for anyone; avoiding sugar is still probably the easiest way to control weight-- but that's not what this article says.)
Most of the studies that the article says show X weren't even actually looking at X, and the author leaves out what they said about Y. For example, the low-fat diet study wasn't interested in weight. The women who ate the low-fat diet didn't weigh much less, but that's very likely because none of the groups was trying to weigh less. (In fact, if anything, it debunks the article author's first point, because the women on different diets were all pretty much the same weight!) What it leaves out is that the women on the low fat diet had significantly lower rates of OVARIAN CANCER. In other words, it might not have had a big effect on weight (and the study was too short to show much about heart disease), but it reduced their chances of getting one of the least-curable forms of cancer. And that's a failure?!? This study also showed smaller effects in other cancers, and studies that include men have found pretty significant differences especially in digestive cancers.
I'm not saying that some of these things aren't myths. I just get really annoyed by the level of scientific illiteracy among journalists-- and this is a blogger, not a trained journalist. The worst of it is that they misinterpret the science, and then the scientists get accused of being wrong or lying! I even heard an NPR reporter say that the study reported two weeks ago about sodium said "you don't have to cut sodium."
No, it said you don't have to cut sodium THAT MUCH. The old science wasn't wrong; the amount of sodium most people eat if they're not conscious of it really is harmful to the average person. All this new study said is that there's a threshold below which the reduction is no longer helpful, and another one below which it might even be harmful for some people. In other words, instead of cutting to below 1200mg, you can eat 2400 with no ill effects if you don't already have high blood pressure. That doesn't mean you should eat 5000. It's like saying that lowering the speed limit from 55 to 35 doesn't save many lives, so let's all drive 120!
Fitness Minutes: (37,396)
3,900 5/25/13 1:59 P
Thanks for sharing the article. Like the other posters, I am already aware of most of its content ... but I do appreciate having the references.
I hope lots of people read the article and it can help make a dent in the misconceptions commonly held in society. So many of my friends think that my way of eating low to moderate carb" is WRONG -- in spite of the fact that I have lost 50 pounds (hit that big milestone just this month) ... had my diagnosis of Type II Diabetes changed to "insulin resistence" ... had to decrease my blood pressure medicine ... and have great lab results.
They think my success is some sort of weird fluke. They actually seem kind'a angry about it.
Fitness Minutes: (0)
574 5/24/13 2:34 P
Fitness Minutes: (1,044)
75 5/24/13 10:21 A
Russell I am a nurse practitioner, and I am ecstatic at the results you have experienced with a low carb diet. The low-carb diet makes a lot of sense to me, especially for the diabetic portion of what you had dealt with. Also, the increased insulin production ends up leading to something to do with the liver which leads to increased cholesterol. I don't remember the entire process. I practice in a different specialty. In the 90s, we all did lowfat, which in turn usually ends up being high carb...which has proven not to be very effective.
I am so glad that your health has been restored. ~Chel
I agree 100% with this. I had so many health issues when I started low carb, and many are gone, and the ones that remain are much better, including my CHF. My heart now pumps 3X the blood per beat than it did before, and my cardiologist is amazed. Yes, I take medication, but every dose is half of what it was, except for the cholesterol, and diabetic meds. Those have been removed. By upping my saturated fats ( meat, butter ), and switching to 4 XL eggs for breakfast, I dropped my cholesterol 90 points, my LDL 50 points, and my HDL. went up 15 points. No meds for it for 6 months, results stayed the same. My A1C is 5.2-5.4 for 3 years, with no meds. I halved my Coreg because my heart is getting stronger, halved my BP meds, and average about 100/65 now, and they may halve them again, because I have been as low as 88/56
I repeat this to as many people as possible, and I know I sound like a broken record, but I was given 6 months to live in 2001, and steadily got worse for 7 years. I was on oxygen at night, and had chest pain and shortness of breath daily. Now I feel healthy, and every test they run, they are amazed at the improvements. Every day I meet someone who has one of these symptoms improved by doing low carb, whereas nothing improved beforehand. I am not saying everyone should be on low carb, but what amazes me is that people can see the proof, and refuse to even study WHY things changed. They may consider that I had other factors. I AM young. However, they should be trying to replicate successes, not repeat the failures.
It seems that they are happy for me, and amazed, but the idea that it would work for others doesn't even occur to them. Meanwhile, the treatment they are using, doesn't work. My cardiologist has hundreds of patients, and she only treats the results, so she runs tests, prescribes pills, and does surgery. When I told her I was on low carb, she admitted that her patients on low carb are the only ones making improvements. Most of her patients are losing ground, and she is happy when people stay the same. She says that low carb has shown promise, but until it is studied, doctors will not be able to recommend it.
I don't think they should be recommending low carb, but they should at the very least be studying it, to prove it works, so that one day they can. I think it would save a lot of lives for diabetics, and heart patients. The tests would have to be done by a group beyond reproach, so that no one doubted the results.
Fitness Minutes: (15,376)
1,939 5/24/13 9:13 A
Thanks for that article!
Fitness Minutes: (321)
2 5/24/13 9:08 A
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.