PDA

View Full Version : High Carb diets, yeah


Kevin Perry
07-15-2008, 06:17 PM
not sure where to categorize this but thought you guys would find some humor in it.

As some of you may or may not know, im in a Personal Training course in college which is eventually going to be a two year and 4 year program combining Personal training and Physical Therapy since there is a slow push to start regulating Personal Trainers in South Carolina. Anyways, some of the methods being taught to us in diet are not surprising to say the least. I was reading a chapter in the text and these quotes popped up about Carbohydrate consumption.

These quotes come from the text Concepts of Fitness and Wellness, Seventh Edition it's updated for 2008

"Increasing carbohydrates in the diet is more desirable than supplementing protein or consuming higher amounts of fat."

"Carbohydrates have been unfairly implicated as a cause of obesity" (on insulin)

"Complex carbohydrates ( bread, pasta, rice) on the other hand, are broken down more slowly and do not cause the same affect on blood sugar. They contribute valuable nutrients and fiber in the diet and should constitute the bulk of a person's diet."

"excess calories are only problematic if caloric intake is larger than caloric expedenture. Carbohydrates are the body's preferred form of energy for physical activity, and the body is well equipped for processing extra carbohydrates. Athletes and other active individuals typically have no difficulty burning off extra energy energy from carbohydrates. Sugar consumption, among people with an adequte diet, is also not associated with major chronic diseases."

honestly im not surprised but I actually find very little in the section on promoting Vegetables and fruits over bread, pasta, ect.

Whats funny about this? nothing, I actually don't care about it because it's not my problem and im gonna do my own thing when im through with the program. Whats gonna burn me is come the next couple semesters we have to train a client and help them loose weight and eat better, etc and im gonna get burned when I promote a low carb, moderate protein and fat diet and a training program based on funtional fitness over step aerobics and isolation exercises.

Yeah, I hav'nt posted anything in a while. Just thought I would contribute something.

Mike ODonnell
07-15-2008, 06:25 PM
depressing....what year was the book printed just out of curiosity....

Kevin Perry
07-15-2008, 06:39 PM
im guessing the published year is 1996, updated every 2 years. Guess thats not surprising either. Here I thought we would at least be given some updated research?

Garrett Smith
07-15-2008, 06:53 PM
In terms of your client that you'll have to train, you'll need to ask your instructor (the person who is grading you) whether they want you to follow the diet that you are taught or if you can modify in ways that you know will help the client to feel better and lose more bodyfat.

Same thing with the training.

Eyes on the prize. Get the grade, get the cert, then start rocking the boat.

Darryl Shaw
07-18-2008, 04:41 AM
These quotes come from the text Concepts of Fitness and Wellness, Seventh Edition it's updated for 2008

"Increasing carbohydrates in the diet is more desirable than supplementing protein or consuming higher amounts of fat."

True - Protein intakes above ~1.8g/kg/day are simply oxidised for energy and as a normal balanced diet provides more than this amount (assuming calorie intake is adequate) supplemental protein is unnecessary. Athletes with heavy training loads are far better off eating more paleo carbs (not grains) rather than fat if they need to increase their calorie intake as this increases their antioxidant intake as well as helping to improve their acid/alkali balance.

"Carbohydrates have been unfairly implicated as a cause of obesity" (on insulin)

True - Excess calories from any source will make you fat.

"Complex carbohydrates (bread, pasta, rice) on the other hand, are broken down more slowly and do not cause the same affect on blood sugar. They contribute valuable nutrients and fiber in the diet and should constitute the bulk of a person's diet."

True - but only if you replace grains which are acid forming and lacking in antioxidants with paleo carbs ie. berries, fruits, shoots, roots, tubers etc.

"excess calories are only problematic if caloric intake is larger than caloric expedenture. Carbohydrates are the body's preferred form of energy for physical activity, and the body is well equipped for processing extra carbohydrates. Athletes and other active individuals typically have no difficulty burning off extra energy energy from carbohydrates. Sugar consumption, among people with an adequte diet, is also not associated with major chronic diseases."

True. (except for the bit about sugar)

Kevin Perry
07-18-2008, 04:07 PM
Darryl,

the point I as getting at is that the book and my class are huge advocates of a high carbohydrate diet. In fact, the other day when we were breaking down the carb/protein/fat ratios.. my instructors were highly against my high fat, high protein, low carb approach.. in fact, they recommended a diet in the 65% Carb, 15% protein, and 20 % fat range...

I don't know about you, but im not an endurance runner and I already know that my body does not react well with high carb diets, I get very sick with them and it affects the severe insomnia I already have. And im sure you know thats a high carb diet and low protein does not do much wonder for someone who weightlifts a lot.

Of course their proposal is that this kind of diet is ideal for clients whose interest is in weight lost. I'll be the first to admit that im no expert in this but that doesn't seem like it would be the case in my eye with the exception of calories in vs out. I just don't see how a high carb diet is effective for insulin sensitivity. ( I've been reading your blogs MOD, trying to get used to the dozens of new exercise science lingo)

Of course I honestly don't care, they don't share the same views that a lot of us have on diet and training so i'll only give them enough attention to get the cert, etc and move on. Not gonna let it spoil my day.

Darryl Shaw
07-19-2008, 05:30 AM
Kevin,

Have you considered the possibility that your instuctors are against your high fat, high protein, low carb diet and recommend a diet of 65% Carbs, 15% protein, and 20 % fat because they know more about nutrition than you?

To understand those macronutrient ratios you need to put them into a paleolithic context and that means going back to Africa circa 50,000bc as that's where our basic biochemistry was formed.

Protein
First your protein requirements are determined by your training load, volume, intensity etc not the type of exercise so it's not unusual for endurance athletes to have higher protein requirements relative to their bodyweight than weightlifters or bodybuilders.
As the daily lives of our gather-scavenger forebears required a high degree of pyhsical activity and fitness we can assume that their protein requirements were similar to those of modern athletes ie. 1.2 - 1.8g/kg/day which works out at around 15 - 20% of calories. It's impossible to study exactly what paleolithic humans were eating but skeletal remains and coprolites suggest that the diet in Africa 50,000 years ago was similar to that of modern hunter-gatherers such as the !Kung San who eat on average 150g of meat per day which works out at around 1g/kg/day for the average 50kg bushman. This is probably a little less than our forebears ate and can be explained by overhunting limiting resources but at more then twice the RDA it can still be considered a high protein diet and is certainly more than adequate.

Fat
Contrary to popular belief stone age humans weren't great hunters and we didn't really start developing the technology required to hunt big game in large numbers until around 20 - 30,000 years ago when we started throwing pointy sticks at big game which eventually led to bow hunting. For most of our history though we were scavenger-gatherers and most of our fat and protein came from either scavenging from predator kills or from small easily caught game such as reptiles, fish, birds, insects and eggs or from plant foods such as nuts and seeds. None of these foods provided a great deal of fat though so consequently we never developed a need for more than the relatively small amount of fat we need for essential functions.
Again this fits in with the diets of contempory hunter-gatherers living in Africa who eat a low fat diet.

Carbohydrates
Carbohydrates from roots, shoots, tubers, fruit, berries etc made up the bulk of the diet of paleolithic humans as they were the most readily available source of energy on the African continent 50,000 years ago plus they had the major advantage of providing energy without having risk life and limb chasing a pride of lions away from it's kill.
Studies of human coprolites (fossilized faeces) show that early humans were eating as much as 120g of fibre per day clearly indicating that they ate huge amounts of plant food which would have provided a lot of carbohydrates as well as high levels vitamins, minerals and antioxidants. Today the !Kung San remain lean fit and healthy throughout their lives while deriving around 70 - 80% of their food intake (by weight) from gathered foods which works out at around 60% of calories from carbs.

I could go on and on about how the largely plant based diet of our forebears affects our biochemistry but I'll stick to the simple fact that our bodies need to remain slightly alkaline (ph of around 7.4 if memory serves) and as fat has a nearly neutral PRAL value the only diet that makes sense in terms of balancing the acid load produced by animal foods (and grains if you're inclined towards the neolithic) is one with a plant to animal food ratio of 70 - 80% plants and 20 -30% animals and when you break that down into macronutrient ratios you end up with ~65% carbs, 15% protein and 20% fat.

Mike ODonnell
07-19-2008, 05:53 AM
I could go on and on about how the largely plant based diet of our forebears affects our biochemistry but I'll stick to the simple fact that our bodies need to remain slightly alkaline (ph of around 7.4 if memory serves) and as fat has a nearly neutral PRAL value the only diet that makes sense in terms of balancing the acid load produced by animal foods (and grains if you're inclined towards the neolithic) is one with a plant to animal food ratio of 70 - 80% plants and 20 -30% animals and when you break that down into macronutrient ratios you end up with ~65% carbs, 15% protein and 20% fat.

So curious....how does a moderate carb (plant based, not grain) like 30%, moderate protein of 20% and higher fat diet of 50%+ not balance ph out levels? Fat like you said is neutral and you are eating more alkaline sources of food than acidic.

That and you have such things as the Inuit paradox, a tribe surviving on fat and protein (high fat) with no high levels of heart disease or cancers. Only when processed foods/sugar/grains were introduced did their health go down very quickly....as inflammation is the real issue spured on by high insulin.

I understand the concerns for optimal pH (but the body can regulate and balance as well as an overly alkaline pH is not good either)....but if one's carb sources are only plant based....eat as much veggies and fruit as you like...well assuming that one is active and doesn't have weight issues...which is not the lifestyle or condition of people today. The diets of a tribe that was active all day, hunted for food and didn't have obesity as an issue is going to have to be modified for the non-active person of today that already suffers from insulin resistance.

Telling the general public that has no nutritional clue (think a V8 is a vegetable, Cheerios are good for the heart, and Wheat bread should be served with every meal.....which means most of their carbs come from acidic grain sources and worsen the ph equation) to eat most of their diet from carbs is like giving the keys to your new porsche to a 16 yr old....a disaster waiting to happen. Isn't that how we got in the mess we are in today with the advice of more carbs (because who would want to burn fat for energy) and low fat eating?

Mike ODonnell
07-19-2008, 06:34 AM
Have you considered the possibility that your instuctors are against your high fat, high protein, low carb diet and recommend a diet of 65% Carbs, 15% protein, and 20 % fat because they know more about nutrition than you?

So when overweight nutritionists and doctors come to me for advice on how to eat to lose weight....seems a little silly I would want to listen to anything they have to say on what they learned about nutrition.

That and %s are useless without the majority of attention focused on total calories.

Kevin Perry
07-19-2008, 09:36 AM
Kevin,

Have you considered the possibility that your instuctors are against your high fat, high protein, low carb diet and recommend a diet of 65% Carbs, 15% protein, and 20 % fat because they know more about nutrition than you?

To understand those macronutrient ratios you need to put them into a paleolithic context and that means going back to Africa circa 50,000bc as that's where our basic biochemistry was formed.

Protein
First your protein requirements are determined by your training load, volume, intensity etc not the type of exercise so it's not unusual for endurance athletes to have higher protein requirements relative to their bodyweight than weightlifters or bodybuilders.
As the daily lives of our gather-scavenger forebears required a high degree of pyhsical activity and fitness we can assume that their protein requirements were similar to those of modern athletes ie. 1.2 - 1.8g/kg/day which works out at around 15 - 20% of calories. It's impossible to study exactly what paleolithic humans were eating but skeletal remains and coprolites suggest that the diet in Africa 50,000 years ago was similar to that of modern hunter-gatherers such as the !Kung San who eat on average 150g of meat per day which works out at around 1g/kg/day for the average 50kg bushman. This is probably a little less than our forebears ate and can be explained by overhunting limiting resources but at more then twice the RDA it can still be considered a high protein diet and is certainly more than adequate.

Fat
Contrary to popular belief stone age humans weren't great hunters and we didn't really start developing the technology required to hunt big game in large numbers until around 20 - 30,000 years ago when we started throwing pointy sticks at big game which eventually led to bow hunting. For most of our history though we were scavenger-gatherers and most of our fat and protein came from either scavenging from predator kills or from small easily caught game such as reptiles, fish, birds, insects and eggs or from plant foods such as nuts and seeds. None of these foods provided a great deal of fat though so consequently we never developed a need for more than the relatively small amount of fat we need for essential functions.
Again this fits in with the diets of contempory hunter-gatherers living in Africa who eat a low fat diet.

Carbohydrates
Carbohydrates from roots, shoots, tubers, fruit, berries etc made up the bulk of the diet of paleolithic humans as they were the most readily available source of energy on the African continent 50,000 years ago plus they had the major advantage of providing energy without having risk life and limb chasing a pride of lions away from it's kill.
Studies of human coprolites (fossilized faeces) show that early humans were eating as much as 120g of fibre per day clearly indicating that they ate huge amounts of plant food which would have provided a lot of carbohydrates as well as high levels vitamins, minerals and antioxidants. Today the !Kung San remain lean fit and healthy throughout their lives while deriving around 70 - 80% of their food intake (by weight) from gathered foods which works out at around 60% of calories from carbs.

I could go on and on about how the largely plant based diet of our forebears affects our biochemistry but I'll stick to the simple fact that our bodies need to remain slightly alkaline (ph of around 7.4 if memory serves) and as fat has a nearly neutral PRAL value the only diet that makes sense in terms of balancing the acid load produced by animal foods (and grains if you're inclined towards the neolithic) is one with a plant to animal food ratio of 70 - 80% plants and 20 -30% animals and when you break that down into macronutrient ratios you end up with ~65% carbs, 15% protein and 20% fat.


Simply put. I don't exactly agree with thir nutritional input anymore than I agree with the Government's food pyramid. After all, these are the same people telling me I need to have my shoulders back and down when doing a one legged squat arm row on the machine?

Sorry but im not here spouting my young "I know more than my instructors" crap. But when they are personally telling me I shouldn't be on a low carb diet (i.e. paleo) because it's unhealthy, just a fad, and because the body has to constantly have carbs as it's energy source. Im not discrediting them, maybe they should be more open to research and the overwhelming obesity rates?

Arien Malec
07-19-2008, 10:55 AM
I could go on and on about how the largely plant based diet of our forebears affects our biochemistry but I'll stick to the simple fact that our bodies need to remain slightly alkaline (ph of around 7.4 if memory serves) and as fat has a nearly neutral PRAL value the only diet that makes sense in terms of balancing the acid load produced by animal foods (and grains if you're inclined towards the neolithic) is one with a plant to animal food ratio of 70 - 80% plants and 20 -30% animals and when you break that down into macronutrient ratios you end up with ~65% carbs, 15% protein and 20% fat.

Darryl, if you look back at this thread, you'll realize that the original instructors are arguing for a grain-based high carbohydrate diet. If you want to argue that point, go for it, but you'll be wrong. I think you are arguing for a high paleo carbohydrate diet -- I'm not sure if you are arguing for high paleo carbs by volume or by calories -- there's a huge difference since paleo carbs tend not to be nutrient dense.

As I'm sure you also know, our paleolithic ancestors subsisted on a wide range of foods, from the Inuit who ate a high fat very low carbohydrate diet, and did quite well, to the pacific islanders who ate mostly coconuts and fish, to the !Kung San who eat 60% (by volume) mongongo nuts and meat, 40% plants, and by calories, eat 60% fat, to Native Americans, who ate anywhere between high fat and protein diets supplemented by plants, to California Natives, who ate 50% acorns, by volume.

You aren't going to find paleolithic evidence for high grain or sugar-based carbohydrate diets, which is what the dietary reference in the original post was advocating.

Again, if you want to argue for a diet that is high in greens, tubers such as turnips and sweet potatoes, and fermented corn, you can find some justification in our nutritional past and in the nutritional present in longer lived communities. But that's not what's being argued by the nutritionists, and there's equal evidence for a high fat moderate protein diet supplemented by plant material.

Mike ODonnell
07-19-2008, 01:24 PM
Sorry but im not here spouting my young "I know more than my instructors" crap.

If they are overweight and on medications.....feel free.

That and question everything....don't just be taught. The system as a whole is broken....so it's going to take people questioning what is accepted as standard in order to start to change things....

Ask your instructors why as a trainer whose clients are most likely overweight, should they eat a high carbohydrate diet that floods the body with insulin when that is a fat storing hormone.....or just print out the article on Dr Rosedale's seminar from the blog (http://projectfit.org/iflifeblog/2008/07/11/insulin-and-sugar-the-one-hormone-you-need-to-control-and-the-one-enemy-you-need-to-avoid/) and ask for their opinion.

Challenge them.....question them....make them give you an answer besides "It's in the book"...and if they say "Well you need to burn carbs for energy" then ask how one is supposed to burn fat then?

Liam Dougherty Springer
07-19-2008, 01:45 PM
Man this thread is great. I am looking into going back to school for a bachlers in dietetics. There is a very indepth program at a college near me and it includes alot of food science and bio chemestry. I am excited in gaining a more intimate knowledge base in this area but I am afraid that most of the classes will all be presenting a modern high carbohydrate diet bias without regard for more recent reserch findings.

I currently have read and own a small library of modern dietetic books and have begun helping people find a way to make better decisions as to their food choices. I am not sure I am actually interested in being a nutritionist as much as a "Life Coach". I cant decide if the schooling is a good path to reach my goals. Any thoughts?

Mike ODonnell
07-19-2008, 01:49 PM
I currently have read and own a small library of modern dietetic books and have begun helping people find a way to make better decisions as to their food choices. I am not sure I am actually interested in being a nutritionist as much as a "Life Coach". I cant decide if the schooling is a good path to reach my goals. Any thoughts?

Legally you can't give out any nutritional advice unless you are a registered dietician which requires schooling....the same schooling that will tell you that fat is bad and carbs are what everyone needs. See how the system is broken?

Liam Dougherty Springer
07-19-2008, 02:13 PM
Legally you can't give out any nutritional advice unless you are a registered dietician which requires schooling....the same schooling that will tell you that fat is bad and carbs are what everyone needs. See how the system is broken?

I was talking to the proffesor of the program about what nutritional advice exactly means. She explaned it is the statement that a specific diet will treat a specific condition. In this way you have given athority to your opinion. In a sence you are prescribing a dietary treatment. However here is the rub..... It is not against any current laws to help someone make a decision they believe may help them reach their life goals, regardless of what they are. As long as you give no athority to your opinion and state that it is simply something you have tried or have read about others trying you are merley expanding the possibility of options in a persons life.

Apparently people do this and they are called Life or Health or even Fitness Coaches. Seems kind of lame and honestly kind of dangerouse to have this be your profession without any formal accredidation and at the same time ....

.... and at the same time it almost makes more sense. I mean it is obviouse this system is broken and that registered nutrtional athority is currently in my persception a very poor measurement of true affective health guidence. So wouldn't it be better to talk to someone who just has a way of life I find atractive and have them guid me? When I think of it this way I could find no more valuble profession when wanting to help the people around me.

This is not to say I don't want to be a regisered dieticion.

Mike ODonnell
07-19-2008, 03:34 PM
Just do what you think is best to reach the people you want to reach....but even as a registered dietician can one tell people anything they want? Or do they still have to perscribe only what is approved dogma for eating? I don't know that answer.

Steven Low
07-19-2008, 04:16 PM
A little note on biochemistry... if you don't like enzymes don't do that. It's more geared towards lab work. While you will be educated thoroughly in the body's energy metabolism, they won't really go over how it translates with hormones, nutrition and other stuff (well, at least my school did and I don't believe many others will as well).

I have personally learned more on the Internet than I ever did in school, ironically or not.

Liam Dougherty Springer
07-19-2008, 08:11 PM
Just do what you think is best to reach the people you want to reach....but even as a registered dietician can one tell people anything they want? Or do they still have to perscribe only what is approved dogma for eating? I don't know that answer.

Actually that was something I asked her about she said if you are registered you can prescribe diets outside of govt. aproved dietary guidelines. That being said I think alot of the buisnesses that employ dieticions have their own requirements as to what you are allowed to perscribe.

Steve I have a formal interveiw in a couple weeks I will be sure and bring up whether or not we will get in depth as to hormonal interactions with diet thanx. Anything else I should look for in a good program?

Kevin Perry
07-19-2008, 08:46 PM
A little note on biochemistry... if you don't like enzymes don't do that. It's more geared towards lab work. While you will be educated thoroughly in the body's energy metabolism, they won't really go over how it translates with hormones, nutrition and other stuff (well, at least my school did and I don't believe many others will as well).

I have personally learned more on the Internet than I ever did in school, ironically or not.


I think this is true also but depends on what community you end up attaching to. I would never have learned about the dangers of high carb diets, or what insulin sensitivity is, paleo, etc had I not found Pmenu or CF. Look at how much the bodybuilding forums are flooded with ignorance compared to here and im glad I came to the dark side (or the light side or whatever side you want to call it).

Steven Low
07-19-2008, 10:01 PM
Actually that was something I asked her about she said if you are registered you can prescribe diets outside of govt. aproved dietary guidelines. That being said I think alot of the buisnesses that employ dieticions have their own requirements as to what you are allowed to perscribe.

Steve I have a formal interveiw in a couple weeks I will be sure and bring up whether or not we will get in depth as to hormonal interactions with diet thanx. Anything else I should look for in a good program?

Seriously though with biochem you're going to be taking a crapton of science classes most of which will not relate towards exercise much at all besides the metabolism stuff I mentioned. If anything, if you just take the upper level biochemistry courses (well, the one that was good was biochemistry II aka metabolism of carbs/protein/nucleic acids/amino acids) -- biochem I and biochem III for us were basically working with enzymes/machines for the first and chemistry + function of nucleic acids/ribonucleic acids/protein synthesis. At least that's what I experienced plus you gotta take all the other misc. courses like organic chem (not really relatable to exercise/nutrition), physical chemistry (basically chemistry + calculus + quantum mechanics) and other stuff like that which doesn't relate either. Plus labs with enzymes and quantitative analysis like I mentioned. Probably not the anticipated route that you want.

I went to Univ. of Md. by the way, so a major college biochemistry major.

Might be better off with something like dietetics/nutrition + exercise physiology combo.... (I think some schools offer a program that does both or something o_o). Obviously, you NEED to take anatomy and physiology which is good plus maybe something like mammalian physiology or something like that. Not sure if they offer anything specific classes on endocrine function although my college had a specific course on central nervous system (I should've taken that instead of stupid environmental plant physiology, lol). Oh well.

Yeah, stuff is pretty limited because most people think exercise and diet (and sleep) are separate entities when they all need to be functioning together to get good results.... sad. That's why tons of studies nowadays are crap cause such variables aren't controlled....

Liam Dougherty Springer
07-20-2008, 01:44 PM
Thanx Steve.

Darryl Shaw
07-21-2008, 05:13 AM
So curious....how does a moderate carb (plant based, not grain) like 30%, moderate protein of 20% and higher fat diet of 50%+ not balance ph out levels? Fat like you said is neutral and you are eating more alkaline sources of food than acidic.

I'm not really quallified to explain the chemistry required to answer this question but luckily for me a quick search found some articles that explain it all for me. :D

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/nutritional_tools/acid.shtml

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/5/1255

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/4/802

(wfs)

To be honest despite eating a paleo diet for the past twenty years and knowing that paleolithic humans ate an enormous volume of plant foods relative to animal foods I didn't realize why it's so important until my mother was diagnosed with osteoporosis and I started looking into diets that might help her.
I actually had my EUREKA! moment on the plant/animal foods ratio while reading Understanding, Preventing and Overcoming Osteoporosis by Jane Plant and Gill Tidey because it contains a two page chart giving the PRAL values of a variety of foods and most plants foods having an average PRAL value of around -2 (minus two) were on the left hand page whereas most animal foods having a PRAL of +8 or 9 (plus eight/nine) were on the right. Put the two together and basic math proves that to create the slightly alkaline diet we need we have to eat at least three or four times as much plant foods than animal foods.
The important thing here though is this data shows that to keep our bones healthy while maintaining a blood/tissue ph of 7.4 we need to eat exactly the same plant to animal food ratio that we know from studying skeletal remains and coprolites that our ancestors ate during the hundred million plus years we were scavenger-gatherers.

That and you have such things as the Inuit paradox, a tribe surviving on fat and protein (high fat) with no high levels of heart disease or cancers. Only when processed foods/sugar/grains were introduced did their health go down very quickly....as inflammation is the real issue spured on by high insulin.
There is no Inuit paradox as far as the ratio of plant/animal is concerned - osteoporosis rates are extremely high amongst Inuits.

I understand the concerns for optimal pH (but the body can regulate and balance as well as an overly alkaline pH is not good either)....but if one's carb sources are only plant based....eat as much veggies and fruit as you like...well assuming that one is active and doesn't have weight issues...which is not the lifestyle or condition of people today. The diets of a tribe that was active all day, hunted for food and didn't have obesity as an issue is going to have to be modified for the non-active person of today that already suffers from insulin resistance.

Telling the general public that has no nutritional clue (think a V8 is a vegetable, Cheerios are good for the heart, and Wheat bread should be served with every meal.....which means most of their carbs come from acidic grain sources and worsen the ph equation) to eat most of their diet from carbs is like giving the keys to your new porsche to a 16 yr old....a disaster waiting to happen. Isn't that how we got in the mess we are in today with the advice of more carbs (because who would want to burn fat for energy) and low fat eating?
Actually I don't feel that the advice to eat a paleo diet needs to be modified for todays couch potato because the whole diet/exercise thing is really pretty simple - replace some of the meat, dairy, grains and processed foods you eat with some fruit and vegetables and do some exercise.

So when overweight nutritionists and doctors come to me for advice on how to eat to lose weight....seems a little silly I would want to listen to anything they have to say on what they learned about nutrition.
Agreed; I've yet to meet a doctor who has a clue about nutrition.

That and %s are useless without the majority of attention focused on total calories.
Agreed; percentages are useless but I thought I should use them as that's what the OP used. I prefer to think of food in terms of volume rather than calories as it's almost impossible to overeat on a paleo diet due the high fibre content of most paleo foods.

Darryl Shaw
07-21-2008, 05:28 AM
Darryl, if you look back at this thread, you'll realize that the original instructors are arguing for a grain-based high carbohydrate diet. If you want to argue that point, go for it, but you'll be wrong. I think you are arguing for a high paleo carbohydrate diet -- I'm not sure if you are arguing for high paleo carbs by volume or by calories -- there's a huge difference since paleo carbs tend not to be nutrient dense.

As I'm sure you also know, our paleolithic ancestors subsisted on a wide range of foods, from the Inuit who ate a high fat very low carbohydrate diet, and did quite well, to the pacific islanders who ate mostly coconuts and fish, to the !Kung San who eat 60% (by volume) mongongo nuts and meat, 40% plants, and by calories, eat 60% fat, to Native Americans, who ate anywhere between high fat and protein diets supplemented by plants, to California Natives, who ate 50% acorns, by volume.

You aren't going to find paleolithic evidence for high grain or sugar-based carbohydrate diets, which is what the dietary reference in the original post was advocating.

Again, if you want to argue for a diet that is high in greens, tubers such as turnips and sweet potatoes, and fermented corn, you can find some justification in our nutritional past and in the nutritional present in longer lived communities. But that's not what's being argued by the nutritionists, and there's equal evidence for a high fat moderate protein diet supplemented by plant material.

You're right; I forgot about the mongongo nuts so I was a little out on the !Kung Sans macronutrient ratios but this would vary with the seasons anyway so it's not that important. What I was trying to do was explain to the OP how the macronutrient ratios he's being taught might fit in with a paleo diet so I wasn't trying to suggest that he follow their advice re. grains and dairy and if you go back to my first post in this thread you'll find that I specifically advised against the consumption of grains.

As for the confusion re. volume vs calories I think I confused myself a little on that one. I usually advise people interested in eating a paleo diet to forget about calories and just make sure that the bulk of the food they eat, at least 60 - 70% by volume, comes from plants with the rest coming from meat, fish, eggs etc.

Mike ODonnell
07-21-2008, 07:47 AM
To be honest despite eating a paleo diet for the past twenty years and knowing that paleolithic humans ate an enormous volume of plant foods relative to animal foods I didn't realize why it's so important until my mother was diagnosed with osteoporosis and I started looking into diets that might help her. I actually had my EUREKA! moment on the plant/animal foods ratio while reading Understanding, Preventing and Overcoming Osteoporosis by Jane Plant and Gill Tidey because it contains a two page chart giving the PRAL values of a variety of foods and most plants foods having an average PRAL value of around -2 (minus two) were on the left hand page whereas most animal foods having a PRAL of +8 or 9 (plus eight/nine) were on the right. Put the two together and basic math proves that to create the slightly alkaline diet we need we have to eat at least three or four times as much plant foods than animal foods. The important thing here though is this data shows that to keep our bones healthy while maintaining a blood/tissue ph of 7.4 we need to eat exactly the same plant to animal food ratio that we know from studying skeletal remains and coprolites that our ancestors ate during the hundred million plus years we were scavenger-gatherers.


There is no Inuit paradox as far as the ratio of plant/animal is concerned - osteoporosis rates are extremely high amongst Inuits.

While I agree trying to get a pH balance to prevent osteoporsis is ideal.....it's hardly the only factor. In fact lack of Vit D (sunshine vitamin) plays a bigger role IMO. That and also considering most people with osteoporsis do not lift heavy weights to stimulate stronger bone growth. Loss of calcium as an alkaline mineral is just one part of the equation.

Also less acidic choices like fish can be an alternative to red meat. Honestly meat is the least of most people's concerns regarding pH....seeing how much coffee, soda, grains, sugar, dairy and cheese people eat/drink. (highly acidic)

Arien Malec
07-21-2008, 09:43 AM
There is no Inuit paradox as far as the ratio of plant/animal is concerned - osteoporosis rates are extremely high amongst Inuits.

Lack of sun is a more likely cause than plant deficiency.

Mike ODonnell
07-21-2008, 02:12 PM
Lack of sun is a more likely cause than plant deficiency.

My money is on the study of bone loss comes far after the Inuit got away from their original primal diet of meat/fat and the influx of processed foods and sugar came into their society and took the toll on them....along with the lack of sunshine exposure and alcohol consumption.

Here's an interesting article (worth reading) with some highlights below.
http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtbones.html

The authors of the study attribute the decline in bone mass to the high protein diet of the Eskimos, especially its high meat content. Some studies with animals, as well as further studies with humans, given diets high in protein also indicate a greater loss of calcium and thinner bones than controls on low protein regimes.

Although he did not directly study bone density in these peoples, he did study their teeth. He found that groups on high meat diets--including Alaskan Eskimos--had a high immunity to tooth decay, were sturdy and strong, and virtually free from degenerative disease. Groups subsisting mainly on plant foods were less robust and had more tooth decay. Pre-Columbian skeletons of American Indians whose diets consisted largely of meat show no osteoporosis, while those of Indians on largely vegetarian diets indicate a high incidence of osteoporosis and other types of bone degeneration. The implication of Dr. Price's research and other anthropoligical studies is that high meat diets protect against osteoporosis.

The "acid-ash" of meat is given as the reason high meat diets cause bone loss. But meats also supply phosphorus, which counteracts this acidity. Phosphorus is needed for the phosphate component of bone matter. Meats are also excellent sources of vitamin B12, which plays a recently discovered but little understood role in maintaining the integrity of the bones.

But sodium fluoride added to drinking water is one of a number of substances that is harmful to our bones. It causes an apparent increase in bone mass, but the bone structure is abnormal and weak.18 Recent studies indicate that hip fractures are more common in areas where water is fluoridated.

Osteoporosis is often associated with excess consumption of alcohol.23 This is the likely explanation of bone loss in Eskimos, who are highly prone to alcoholism.

Even small changes in the native diet of carnivorous populations render them vulnerable to degenerative disease like osteoporosis and alcoholism. A recent article on the Canadian Inuits indicates that commercial foods like jam, white bread and peanut butter have replaced some of the meat in their diet, even while they continue to maintain a traditional lifestyle.

Individuals who find they do better on high meat diets need not, therefore, worry about osteoporosis, as long as their diet includes complementary animal fats, plenty of calcium and a variety of other properly prepared whole foods.

To think red meat or high protein is the culprit....would mean that by now I should be about as brittle as Samuel L. Jackson playing Mr Glass in the movie Unbreakable....but so far so good as I continue to crash into hockey boards and flip over the handlebars of my mountain bike.....although need to work on that.

Darryl Shaw
07-22-2008, 04:44 AM
Arien & Mike,

Sorry, but you're both wrong. Using rates of hip fracture incidence (HFI) in 50 year old women per 100,000 person-years as an indication of overall bone health amongst the population there is no correlation between exposure to sunlight or vitamin D levels and bone health.

HFI rates per 100,000 50 Year Old Women in 33 Countries*
Nigeria 0.8
China 2.9
New Guinea 3.1
Thailand 5.0
South Africa 7.7
Korea 11.5
Singapore 21.6
Malaysia 26.6
Yugoslavia 33.5
Saudi Arabia 47.3
Chile 56.8
Italy 57.2
Holland 60.7
Spain 65.1
Japan 67.3
Hong Kong 69.2
Isreal 75.5
Ireland 76.0
France 77.0
Finland 93.5
Canada 110.3
Crete 113.0
United Kingdom 116.5
Portugal 119.8
USA 120.3
Australia 124.8
Switzerland 129.4
New Zealand 139.0
Argentina 147.8
Denmark 165.1
Sweden 172.0
Norway 186.7
Germany 199.3

The point I'm trying to make here is the ratio of acid to alkaline forming foods that maintains your blood and tissues at ph7.4 without your body having to use your skeleton to balance things out is almost exactly the same ratio of plant to animal foods that our earliest ancestors ate ie. 70 - 80% gathered foods (fruit, berries, roots, tubers, nuts, seeds etc) and 20 - 30% scavenged/hunted foods (meat, fish, eggs, insects etc).

*Source: Understanding, Preventing and Overcoming Osteoporosis by Professor Jane Plant and Gill Tidy.

My money is on the study of bone loss comes far after the Inuit got away from their original primal diet of meat/fat and the influx of processed foods and sugar came into their society and took the toll on them....along with the lack of sunshine exposure and alcohol consumption.

People have only been living as far north as the Inuits for about 1000 years so how can their diet be considered primal or in any way representative of the diet we ate during the 250,000 or so years homo sapiens spent as gatherer/scavengers and then hunter/gatherers in Africa?

Garrett Smith
07-22-2008, 07:54 AM
As a licensed naturopathic physician, I can prescribe nutrition programs. We refer to nutrition prescribed to treat specific conditions as "clinical nutrition".

I got my undergrad degree in physiology with a split minor in nutrition and chemistry. ND school was four more years past undergrad. Note that not all the US states license NDs.

For more info on accredited (note--not home/correspondence unaccredited/unlicensable schools) naturopathic colleges, see the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges (http://www.aanmc.org/).

Mike ODonnell
07-22-2008, 07:54 AM
Sorry, but you're both wrong. Using rates of hip fracture incidence (HFI) in 50 year old women per 100,000 person-years as an indication of overall bone health amongst the population there is no correlation between exposure to sunlight or vitamin D levels and bone health.
The fact that you are using women as your example, doesn't that point to something else being a larger factor in osteoporosis....like Estrogen and it's role with Calcium/Vit D utilization? Considering men eat way more meat than women too.

The point I'm trying to make here is the ratio of acid to alkaline forming foods that maintains your blood and tissues at ph7.4 without your body having to use your skeleton to balance things out is almost exactly the same ratio of plant to animal foods that our earliest ancestors ate ie. 70 - 80% gathered foods (fruit, berries, roots, tubers, nuts, seeds etc) and 20 - 30% scavenged/hunted foods (meat, fish, eggs, insects etc).
Honestly I don't care if someone wants to eat 70% veggies, I am sure they will be healthier for it, maybe...or maybe not...as a fat vegetarian eating tons of calories from carbs like carrot sticks all day...will still be overweight with increased risk of diabetes. (BUT in actuality the % is not going to matter as much as the total calories, which will have a greater health impact altogether, positive or negative) The point that I was trying to make since this thread started....is that when dealing with real people in today's world....they will not easily drop their grains and sugars to eat Paleo. So telling them to eat 65% carbs (which was the recommendation of the course outline with no specification to what kind of foods) is possibly the dumbest thing you can do with the general public when you know they will continue with grains/breads or other high calorie substitutions (as that is what they think carbs are) and decrease their health. Not too mention if you are dealing with an obese person with onset of diabetes/insulin resistance/fatty liver.....carbs should be restricted as much as they can be for optimal healing. (You can eat a lb of celery...but that isn't going to amount to that many carbs anyways) Could always bring up every low carb study ever done and how it reverses most all ill-health parameters. That and could you please tell me one "essential" sugar the body needs?

Honestly...the whole Paleo argument becomes irrational and impractical if you don't apply it to the conditions of people and food availability of today (or better words may be "people's food choices"). Not too mention how do the ratios of high carb intake for a tribe of people highly active, already lean, lower overall calorie intake, with low fasting insulin levels relate to overweight, non-active, overeating, high fasting insulin levels people of today? It doesn't! The greatest factor on % of carbs is going to be the person's starting insulin resistance factor and activity level...that should be the determining factor.

In the end I think we can agree...meat/fish, veggies, some fruit, healthy fats, be active, get some sun, sleep and don't overeat....that's 95% of results and health. The other 5% aren't worth arguing over.

Kevin Perry
07-22-2008, 10:25 AM
This tuned out to be a good thread, but yes the original recommendation was on a high carb diet that ranged upwards of 60 - 65 % carbs for regular people and as much as 70% carbs for athletes or highly active individuals and of course the guideline was the food pyramid which obviously is biased towards high calorie carbs especially grains, pastas, ect. Personally, I strive for a 40/30/30 split and I think the basic CF prescription is a excellent base to work from. Whole foods make better than processed foods. I can't comment on ph balance and bone loss since I don't know much about that yet.

P.S. not related but I turned down a job offer by a commercal gym today because of a comment made by the manager about nutrition not being as important. I think it was a petty typical gym commet.

"We are not one of thos bodybuilding nutrition pushing places, we are more of the get in your cardiovascular exercise and eat what you wish type of place".

He said this with a big cake placed on the table for someone's birthday as overweight clients were walking by.

DId'nt know whether to laugh or if i should have been shocked.

Mike ODonnell
07-23-2008, 08:33 AM
"We are not one of thos bodybuilding nutrition pushing places, we are more of the get in your cardiovascular exercise and eat what you wish type of place".

Yeah....cause that works. Commercial gyms are not in business for results....just to bill people monthly whether they show up or not.....forever.....

Liam Dougherty Springer
07-24-2008, 10:09 PM
I know I pay for two gym memberships and take every chance I can to work out outside. I keep thinking if I quit the gyms eventualy the equiptment I want would be paid for just by not being charged each month.

Darryl Shaw
07-25-2008, 06:23 AM
The fact that you are using women as your example, doesn't that point to something else being a larger factor in osteoporosis....like Estrogen and it's role with Calcium/Vit D utilization? Considering men eat way more meat than women too.

I used women to demonstrate that there is no correlation between exposure to sunlight or vitamin D levels and bone health because there is no comparable data available for men and as the data relates solely to 50 year old women estrogen levels are not a statistically significant variable.


Honestly I don't care if someone wants to eat 70% veggies, I am sure they will be healthier for it, maybe...or maybe not...as a fat vegetarian eating tons of calories from carbs like carrot sticks all day...will still be overweight with increased risk of diabetes. (BUT in actuality the % is not going to matter as much as the total calories, which will have a greater health impact altogether, positive or negative) The point that I was trying to make since this thread started....is that when dealing with real people in today's world....they will not easily drop their grains and sugars to eat Paleo. So telling them to eat 65% carbs (which was the recommendation of the course outline with no specification to what kind of foods) is possibly the dumbest thing you can do with the general public when you know they will continue with grains/breads or other high calorie substitutions (as that is what they think carbs are) and decrease their health. Not too mention if you are dealing with an obese person with onset of diabetes/insulin resistance/fatty liver.....carbs should be restricted as much as they can be for optimal healing.

People get fat because they do too little exercise and eat too much of everything not because a high percentage of there calorie intake comes from carbs or any other macronutrient. If people need to lose weight all they need to do is eat less of everything and, more importantly, get off their fat asses and do some exercise because exercise, independant of all other factors, will increase insulin sensitivity.

Could always bring up every low carb study ever done and how it reverses most all ill-health parameters That and could you please tell me one "essential" sugar the body needs?

We both know that for every scientific study saying one thing there are a dozen others that can contradict it so lets stick to the real world shall we, like for example the fact that the healthiest and most longevous people on the planet ate a diet comprising around 80% carbohydrates (mostly sweet potatos) for most of their lives? Oh and the "essential" sugar the body needs is glucose (I'm surprised you didn't know that.......) which is so essential that in the absence of an adequate dietary intake of carbohydrates your body can produce up to about 150g of glucose per day from protein (gluconeogenesis) which results in the loss lean body mass unless you increase your protein intake which brings us back to the problem of your bodies ph balance. Eating a high proportion of plant foods and therefore ensuring that you have at least a moderate to high carbohydrate intake has a been proven to have a protein sparing effect as well as providing high intakes of fibre, antioxidants, phytonutrients and all kinds of good stuff as well as helping to maintain your body at ph7.4 without having to use your skeleton to balance things out. Low carb high fat diets do none of those things.

Honestly...the whole Paleo argument becomes irrational and impractical if you don't apply it to the conditions of people and food availability of today (or better words may be "people's food choices"). Not too mention how do the ratios of high carb intake for a tribe of people highly active, already lean, lower overall calorie intake, with low fasting insulin levels relate to overweight, non-active, overeating, high fasting insulin levels people of today? It doesn't! The greatest factor on % of carbs is going to be the person's starting insulin resistance factor and activity level...that should be the determining factor.

How is the paleo argument irrational or impractical when it comes to helping people make more sensible food choices when it's about as simple as a diet can get? Also the percentage of carbs eaten by someone developing insulin resistance is irrelevant as it's their total calorie intake that counts and if they want to lose weight and improve their insulin sensitivity all they need to do is cut their calorie intake and do some exercise.

In the end I think we can agree...meat/fish, veggies, some fruit, healthy fats, be active, get some sun, sleep and don't overeat....that's 95% of results and health. The other 5% aren't worth arguing over.

At least we can agree on something...... :p

Mark Gebhard
07-25-2008, 07:47 AM
Oh and the "essential" sugar the body needs is glucose (I'm surprised you didn't know that.......) which is so essential that in the absence of an adequate dietary intake of carbohydrates your body can produce up to about 150g of glucose per day from protein (gluconeogenesis) which results in the loss lean body mass unless you increase your protein intake which brings us back to the problem of your bodies ph balance.

Essential: Required in the diet, because the body cannot make it. As in an essential amino acid or an essential fatty acid.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3332
(emphasis mine)

Craig Loizides
07-25-2008, 09:21 AM
People get fat because they do too little exercise and eat too much of everything not because a high percentage of there calorie intake comes from carbs or any other macronutrient. If people need to lose weight all they need to do is eat less of everything and, more importantly, get off their fat asses and do some exercise because exercise, independant of all other factors, will increase insulin sensitivity.


Have you read Good Calories Bad Calories? Like you I used to think that fat gain and loss was just an energy balance equation. GCBC provides a lot of really interesting counter arguments to this thinking. Here's a short response Taubes wrote recently to one of his critics which outlines some of his main arguments. I definitely recommend the book.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/taubes-response-to-bray-ob-reviews.pdf

Here's a great thread on acid base balance.
http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/showthread.php?t=117&page=2
Check the posts by Robb and Stuart. The argument is basically that the body is an open system and not a closed system. The body can remove excess acid through both exhaling CO2 and the urine without breaking down bone to neutralize the acid. The biggest problem is most likely grains which not only are acidic but prevent the absorption of some base forming minerals. I think exercise plays a large role in maintaining bone health as well.

Having said that PRAL numbers are typically given by mass and not calories. It would be pretty easy to get 75%+ calories from meat and still have a net alkaline diet.

Mike ODonnell
07-25-2008, 10:54 AM
How is the paleo argument irrational or impractical when it comes to helping people make more sensible food choices when it's about as simple as a diet can get? Also the percentage of carbs eaten by someone developing insulin resistance is irrelevant as it's their total calorie intake that counts and if they want to lose weight and improve their insulin sensitivity all they need to do is cut their calorie intake and do some exercise.

Have you ever worked professionally (had to make a full time living doing it) as a trainer? Point being....deal with the general overweight (non-elite athletes) crowd for a few years....tell me if it is as easy as it seems then and if telling them to eat mostly carbohydrates (and they will eat grains....oh yes they will...I don't care what you say you tell them) is a good idea and gets them real weight loss/results. That and what gets them longterm results....as anyone can get someone to lose weight in 30 days....but to have them keep it off for years...there is the real importance.

It's kind of like me, a single guy, giving child raising advice...I don't have kids...so how hard could it be to just telling them to only watch as much tv as they know is good for them a day and make sure it is only PBS/Discovery Channel and not any other stations. I'm sure they wouldn't abuse that at all....

Arien Malec
07-25-2008, 02:17 PM
People get fat because they do too little exercise and eat too much of everything not because a high percentage of there calorie intake comes from carbs or any other macronutrient. If people need to lose weight all they need to do is eat less of everything and, more importantly, get off their fat asses and do some exercise because exercise, independant of all other factors, will increase insulin sensitivity.

BS. In the real world, overweight people exercise like crazy and fail to lose weight. Most often, they do this following recommended diet plans that are low in fat, and correspondingly high in carbs. Pretty much every major well controlled study has shown that a low carb diet beats a high carb diet hand down on all measures. There's a physiological reason for that.



We both know that for every scientific study saying one thing there are a dozen others that can contradict it so lets stick to the real world shall we, like for example the fact that the healthiest and most longevous people on the planet ate a diet comprising around 80% carbohydrates (mostly sweet potatos) for most of their lives?

I assume you are talking about Okinawans, I assume that by 80% you mean 70%, and I assume that you are talking about volume, not calories.

I've got no issue stating that an 1800 calorie diet high in fish and seafood, rich in green vegetables, and rich in lower GI paleo carbs can be quite healthy, in the presence of lots of hard, physical work, especially when that lifestyle is followed from birth, and supported culturally, is highly beneficial to health.

Asking an overweight American to transition to that dietary approach is just silly. Said American first needs to get insulin sensitivity under control through a low carbohydrate diet, and need to grow some muscle. Once the fat is off, and the lean mass is up, transitioning to something like the med diet or the okinawan diet might be sensible. But first things first.

Mike ODonnell
07-25-2008, 08:55 PM
BS. In the real world, overweight people exercise like crazy and fail to lose weight.
very true....as the whole "fat jogger" syndrome....although I believe most of that to be people just take in still too many calories....and most of it being carb based too....so insulin is high...and fat burning is halted. Not too mention all the extra stress in the lifestyle, lack of sleep, liver toxic-overload, environmental factors, insulin resistance...etc..etc....the average person is not a healthy fat burning machine.,

I assume you are talking about Okinawansy

Speaking of the Okinawans, they have longevity because of the following:
- Calorie restriction (they don't over eat)
- VERY active lifestyle
- NO stress and Positive Outlook in their life

Americans...Hmmmm.....lets see
- Love to over eat
- NOT active or consider taking the escalator a workout
- ALL stressed out and High rates of Depression

If someone wants to eat 65% carbs from natural foods while in a calorie deficit mode, living a very active livestyle and have little to no stress in life....then by all means go ahead....unfortunately...that is not your average American.....%s look good on paper, until you have to deal with people....that is a whole 'nother reality

Dave Van Skike
07-25-2008, 09:54 PM
Speaking of the Okinawans,

Focus is key to karate..
Mr Miyagi was from Okinawa....

Darryl Shaw
07-26-2008, 05:06 AM
Essential: Required in the diet, because the body cannot make it. As in an essential amino acid or an essential fatty acid.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3332
(emphasis mine)

I was using the first definition of the word.

Essential: 1. Something that cannot be done without.
2. Required in the diet, because the body cannot make it. As in an essential amino acid or an essential fatty acid.
3. Idiopathic. As in essential hypertension. "Essential" is a hallowed term meaning "We don't know the cause."
(Emphasis mine.)

Darryl Shaw
07-26-2008, 05:55 AM
Have you read Good Calories Bad Calories? Like you I used to think that fat gain and loss was just an energy balance equation. GCBC provides a lot of really interesting counter arguments to this thinking. Here's a short response Taubes wrote recently to one of his critics which outlines some of his main arguments. I definitely recommend the book.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/taubes-response-to-bray-ob-reviews.pdf

I bought a copy of The Diet Delusion which is the UK edition of Good Calories Bad Calories a while back but I haven't read it in full yet.

Here's a great thread on acid base balance.
http://www.performancemenu.com/forum/showthread.php?t=117&page=2
Check the posts by Robb and Stuart. The argument is basically that the body is an open system and not a closed system. The body can remove excess acid through both exhaling CO2 and the urine without breaking down bone to neutralize the acid. The biggest problem is most likely grains which not only are acidic but prevent the absorption of some base forming minerals. I think exercise plays a large role in maintaining bone health as well.

I don't dispute the fact that the body has a number of systems to ensure it maintains it's ph balance but they are all back up systems to enable short term survival when dietary sources of alkalizing elements are unavailable.
As for grains it's interesting to note that white rice has a PRAL value of 1.7, which is only slightly acid forming whereas brown rice has a PRAL value of 12.5 making it more acid forming than meat.

Having said that PRAL numbers are typically given by mass and not calories. It would be pretty easy to get 75%+ calories from meat and still have a net alkaline diet.

It's unlikely that our stone age forebears would have been able to consume 75% of their calories from meat except on rare occasions because prior to our developing the use of spears and bows we were scavengers feeding on carrion, small easily caught game, fish, insects etc but you are correct in pointing out that PRAL values are given by mass (per 100g) so due to seasonal variations in calorie intakes and macronutrient ratios there would have been periods when a stone age hunter-gatherer may have derived a high percentage of their calorie intake from animal foods while still maintaining a net alkaline diet. As I pointed out previously though you need to eat roughly four times the weight of plant foods to animal food to produce the slightly alkaline ph our bodies need and this fits almost exactly the ratio of gathered foods to animal foods that we ate throughout most of our history. Incidentally this is almost exactly the same ratio of plant to animal foods that the people taking part in the Okinawan Centenarian Study ate for most of their lives.

Darryl Shaw
07-26-2008, 06:06 AM
Have you ever worked professionally (had to make a full time living doing it) as a trainer? Point being....deal with the general overweight (non-elite athletes) crowd for a few years....tell me if it is as easy as it seems then and if telling them to eat mostly carbohydrates (and they will eat grains....oh yes they will...I don't care what you say you tell them) is a good idea and gets them real weight loss/results. That and what gets them longterm results....as anyone can get someone to lose weight in 30 days....but to have them keep it off for years...there is the real importance.

It's kind of like me, a single guy, giving child raising advice...I don't have kids...so how hard could it be to just telling them to only watch as much tv as they know is good for them a day and make sure it is only PBS/Discovery Channel and not any other stations. I'm sure they wouldn't abuse that at all....

I spent a soul destroying year working as a personal trainer in a Globogym during my early twenties and I remember having fat people tell me they didn't understand why they were fat or why they couldn't lose weight while they ate chocolate bars and sipped sports drinks they'd bought from the clubs vending machines, so yes, I do know how hard it is getting people to follow even simple advice on diet and exercise.

Darryl Shaw
07-26-2008, 06:18 AM
BS. In the real world, overweight people exercise like crazy and fail to lose weight. Most often, they do this following recommended diet plans that are low in fat, and correspondingly high in carbs.

People who exercise like crazy and fail to lose weight generally overestimate their energy expenditure and underestimate their energy intake.

Pretty much every major well controlled study has shown that a low carb diet beats a high carb diet hand down on all measures. There's a physiological reason for that.

Pretty much every major well controlled study has shown that you lose weight if you create an energy deficit regardless of the macronutrient ratio.

I assume you are talking about Okinawans, I assume that by 80% you mean 70%, and I assume that you are talking about volume, not calories.
I double checked that figure and I was slightly out as it said that the people taking part in the Okinawan Centenarian Study derived 70 - 80% of their calories from carbohydrates. Todays Okinawans generally eat a diet that's around 65% carbs though and rice has replaced sweet potatoes as their staple food so it will be intersting to see if they'll live as long as their grandparents.

Darryl Shaw
07-26-2008, 06:27 AM
Speaking of the Okinawans, they have longevity because of the following:
- Calorie restriction (they don't over eat)
- VERY active lifestyle
- NO stress and Positive Outlook in their life

Americans...Hmmmm.....lets see
- Love to over eat
- NOT active or consider taking the escalator a workout
- ALL stressed out and High rates of Depression

If someone wants to eat 65% carbs from natural foods while in a calorie deficit mode, living a very active livestyle and have little to no stress in life....then by all means go ahead....unfortunately...that is not your average American.....%s look good on paper, until you have to deal with people....that is a whole 'nother reality

It's a minor point but the Okinawan Centenarian Study began back in 1975 so the original participants, born around 1875, lived through some pretty turbulent times including WW2 and it's aftermath so their lives were hardly stress free which makes their longevity even more remarkable.

www.okicent.org

Liam Dougherty Springer
07-26-2008, 09:21 AM
Focus is key to karate..
Mr Miyagi was from Okinawa....

Thanx Dave:D

Arien Malec
07-26-2008, 10:58 AM
People who exercise like crazy and fail to lose weight generally overestimate their energy expenditure and underestimate their energy intake.
...

Pretty much every major well controlled study has shown that you lose weight if you create an energy deficit regardless of the macronutrient ratio.

OK, let me explain how it works for me, and then provide a biological explanation for why it works that way, and why it works that way for most people.

Calorie restriction on a high carb diet = insane cravings, low energy, feelings of irritability, etc. And when I say cravings, it goes beyond hunger and wanting food -- it's finding yourself having eaten a half box of crackers after eating "just one". It's finding yourself in the kitchen without thinking about it. It's something that requires constant, active will all the time to manage and deal with.

Calorie restriction on a low carb diet = manageable, normal hunger, high energy and a good mood.

Why? In the presence of a high carb diet, the body is flooded with insulin, which tells the body to store and grow. Despite the caloric restriction, fat cells are inhibited from releasing energy. If there are any issues with differential insulin resistance (where lean tissue is more insulin resistant than adipose tissue), the fat cells are actually storing and packing away energy, leaving the lean tissue starved for energy. Result: lethargy, cravings, irritability. Long term result: weight loss includes more lean tissue loss than fat loss.

With a low carb diet, you get none of that.

For people with normal insulin sensitivity, it doesn't much matter, particularly with lower GI carbs and a high % lean mass. For people with insulin resistance and a lower % lean mass (that is, pretty much every American trying to lose weight), it makes a pretty huge difference.

The recent study published in NEJM compared a restricted calorie high carb, low fat diet to a restricted calorie med diet (similar in spirit to the Okinawan diet in terms of % carb and focus on fiber and leafy greens) to an unrestricted calorie low carb diet.

One of those diets mopped the floor with the other two, in terms of total weight loss, lipid improvements, HbA1c improvements, and C-reactive protein (i.e, inflammation) improvements. Guess which one? The unrestricted calorie low carb diet, not the calorie restricted low fat diet or the calorie restricted Med diet.

'Splain that?

Steven Low
07-26-2008, 11:09 AM
Arien: that was a pretty good explanation. Props. :p


Anyway, I would suggest everyone to take a look at what insulin actually does (if you haven't or don't know). Thankfully, wiki entries on hormones are pretty well sourced now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin#Effects

It's pretty much a purely anabolic substance which is *not* necessarily good. Other hormones like GH are both catabolic (for adipose tissue/lipids) and anabolic (for lean body mass like muscle or other tissue). Insulin is pretty much anabolic for both muscle and adipose tissue.. which creates some conflicts especially in limited energy environment where a person is trying to lose weight like Arien explained.

Tom Rawls
07-27-2008, 07:14 AM
One of those diets mopped the floor with the other two, in terms of total weight loss, lipid improvements, HbA1c improvements, and C-reactive protein (i.e, inflammation) improvements. Guess which one? The unrestricted calorie low carb diet, not the calorie restricted low fat diet or the calorie restricted Med diet.

'Splain that?

"Mopped up"? That strikes me as hyperbolic. What was the difference in weight loss? 10 lbs in 2 yrs vs 6 lbs.

Perhaps the explanation is that the low carb diet relied on vegetarian sources of fat and protein.

Lots of athletes are successful on diets that include more carbs than the zone and such recommend, and civilization was literally built on the energy provided by carbs--mostly grains. So I can't get exercised the way some carbophobes do

Refined carbs--e.g. high fructose corn syrup--are in a separate category, however, same as trans fats are in a separate category from other fats.

Mike ODonnell
07-27-2008, 07:22 AM
It's a minor point but the Okinawan Centenarian Study began back in 1975 so the original participants, born around 1875, lived through some pretty turbulent times including WW2 and it's aftermath so their lives were hardly stress free which makes their longevity even more remarkable.

www.okicent.org

True...although I think a testament to the older Easter generations is their ability to be all "zen/awareness" and only deal with the present moment...you didn't see many probably worrying all day about what may or may not happen, they learned to deal with what they could control and let go of all the rest....unlike the world of today where people seem to be worry worts over everything and everyone. So no matter what the true outside stressors may have been....their internal effect was minimal. Or they may have had short periods of high stress, but was not a daily chronic stress...like people have sitting in an office all day worrying about their reports and stuff that really has minimal importance to the overall scheme of life. No matter...they still had a high level of daily happiness which was their choice.

People need to fix themselves on the inside...before they start seeing true lasting results on the outside. Unfortunately people just don't want to put that kind of time and effort into self discovery....not when there is a non-stop world of artificial and stressful stimulants/distractions all around them making more noise every day (news, media, tv, etc..etc..).

Mike ODonnell
07-27-2008, 07:30 AM
Lots of athletes are successful on diets that include more carbs than the zone and such recommend, and civilization was literally built on the energy provided by carbs--mostly grains. So I can't get exercised the way some carbophobes do

I think we are all trying to make the same point....
- People with very high activity level can lose weight while still having a larger % of cal with carbs and also in a calorie deficit state
- Overweight/Insulin Resistant non-active sedentary people of today would do better to have a mod/low carb diet (cal deficit as well) while also incorporating more activity into their life.

Adjust your carbs to your activity level. Simple. Comparing what an athlete should do to what an overweight office worker should do....is 2 different optimal training and nutritional programming. Higher carb % without a higher activity level is going to spell disaster and loss of muscle.

Arien Malec
07-27-2008, 09:09 AM
"Mopped up"? That strikes me as hyperbolic. What was the difference in weight loss? 10 lbs in 2 yrs vs 6 lbs.

Again, greater weight loss in an unrestricted diet than in a calorie restricted diet, with concomitant statistically significant improvements in generally recognized physiological measures of health (lipids, HbA1c, CRP). If this were a phase III drug trial, that would be a pretty devastating result for the low fat diet.

With regard to the absolute amount of weight loss, that's actually pretty high for a 2 year study of any significant population group. Just shows how difficult long term weight loss is.

Mike ODonnell
07-27-2008, 10:13 AM
courtesy of Conditioning Research (http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com/)....this study

Effects of two energy-restricted diets differing in the carbohydrate/protein ratio on weight loss and oxidative changes of obese men.

Abete I, Parra D, Martinez De Morentin B, Alfredo Martinez J.

Department of Food Sciences, Physiology and Toxicology, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.

Introduction Low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets are a current challenge in the nutritional treatment of obesity. Objective To compare the effect of a low-carbohydrate high-protein diet with a traditional hypocaloric diet on weight loss and mitochondrial oxidative metabolism. Subjects and methods Nineteen obese men (age 36+/-6 years; body mass index 34+/-2 kg/m(2)) were randomized to follow one of the two diets-control diet (15% protein; 30% lipids; 55% carbohydrates) or high-protein diet (30% protein; 30% lipids; 40% carbohydrates)-over an 8-week period. Anthropometry, biochemical variables, resting energy expenditure and mitochondrial oxidation were measured at the start and at the end of the intervention. Results The high-protein diet produced a greater weight loss (-8.3+/-1.2% versus -5.5+/-2.5%, P=0.012) than the control diet. Interestingly, an activation in the mitochondrial oxidation was found in the high-protein-fed group. This stimulation was positively correlated with the final resting energy expenditure and negatively associated with the final fat mass content. Conclusion Low-carbohydrate high-protein diets could involve specific changes in mitochondrial oxidation that could be related to a higher weight loss.

Mike ODonnell
07-27-2008, 10:21 AM
another good article from Stephen at Whole Health

My conclusion, from this study and others, is that macronutrients don't determine how healthy a diet is. The specific foods that compose the diet do. The rural Masai are healthy on a high-fat diet, the rural Bantu are fairly healthy on a low-fat, high carbohydrate diet. Only the urban Bantu show a pattern really consistent with the "disease of civilization", despite a daily energy expenditure very similar to the rural Bantu. They're unhealthy because they eat too much processed food: processed vegetable oil, processed grain products, refined sugar.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-to-do-if-your-study-contradicts.html

Same old message.....sugar kills.

Mike ODonnell
07-27-2008, 10:36 AM
as for Okinawa....could it be what is being "told" as their healthy diet is far from the truth?

In some countries around the world, eating meat is taboo. Other countries exhibit differences in their preferences for meat. The Japanese, for example, generally rank beef first, followed by pork, chicken, whale meat, lamb and mutton, goat and horsemeat. The Chinese, it seems, put pork first, then lamb and mutton, chicken and horse. As for Okinawa, "pork as number one" sums it up. Okinawa clearly favors the Chinese preference over the Japanese. However, in Okinawa's case what is available and familiar no doubt outweighs preference in determining the rank order.

In Okinawa, during the hunting and gathering era, wild boar and dugong were hunted for food. It is thought that beef and horsemeat have only been eaten since the 12th century, and pork since the 14th century when potato cultivation spread through Okinawa. Pork did not appear on the tables of ordinary folk until the latter half of the 18th century. Thus, consumption of these meats is not all that old. A major factor in the spread of pork was the need to entertain the Sappo envoys from China, the "pork as number one" country. The Buddhism that spread in Japan fostered the appearance at least of shunning meat. Shintoism originally held the idea that meat eating was defilement. In the fusion of Shintoism and Buddhism, it is thought that this idea became linked with the Buddhist proscription against killing living things. Further, when rulers in Okinawa instituted policies to turn people from hunting and fishing to agricultural pursuits, the use for food of domestic animals like oxen and horses that were needed to till rice paddies was strictly forbidden.
http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/026/e/phi_3.html

In fact, here’s a quote from Dr, Kaayla Daniels, author of The Whole Soy Story:

Dr. [Kazuhiko] Taira also reports that healthy and vigorous Okinawans eat 100 grams each of pork and fish each day. So much for the low-fat, plant-based diet!

One hundred grams of pork and fish each day tallies up to 3 pounds of meat a week! What about the claim that Okinawans eat lots of soy? Here’s another snippet from Dr. Daniels. It is a response to The Okinawa Program, one of several books touting a bastardized/westernized Okinawan diet as the one true path to nutritional enlightenment:

Is the total amount 60 to 120 grams per day? Or should we trust a Table that shows total legume consumption (including soy) in the amount of about 75 grams per day for the years 1949-1993? Perhaps the people eat an average of three ounces of soy products per day, mostly tofu and miso? Or is it two whole servings of soy, with each serving a mere one ounce? Only one thing’s clear — the Okinawans aren’t really big soy eaters.

What’s becoming clear here is that the real Okinawan diet relies on quite a bit of pork, fish and vegetables fried in lard.
http://breadandmoney.com/thefreeradical/?p=135

Vegetarian propaganda or a whole health system that refuses to admit higher fat intake could be healthy? Gasp.....

Darryl Shaw
07-28-2008, 05:48 AM
The recent study published in NEJM compared a restricted calorie high carb, low fat diet to a restricted calorie med diet (similar in spirit to the Okinawan diet in terms of % carb and focus on fiber and leafy greens) to an unrestricted calorie low carb diet.

One of those diets mopped the floor with the other two, in terms of total weight loss, lipid improvements, HbA1c improvements, and C-reactive protein (i.e, inflammation) improvements. Guess which one? The unrestricted calorie low carb diet, not the calorie restricted low fat diet or the calorie restricted Med diet.

'Splain that?

I'm no a statistician so I may be wrong but as I read it the participants in the NEJM study ate fairly similar diets and experienced fairly similar results and as the difference in weight loss between the best and worst diet amounted to about 1/4 lb per month with the best diet resulting in only 12.1 lbs lost over two years compared to the worst with only 7.6 lbs lost over two years I'd say that all three diets produced equally poor results.

Chaneges in Dietary Intake, Energy Expenditure and Urinary Ketones during 2 Years of Intervention. (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/3/229/T2)

Darryl Shaw
07-28-2008, 06:13 AM
as for Okinawa....could it be what is being "told" as their healthy diet is far from the truth?

http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/026/e/phi_3.html

http://breadandmoney.com/thefreeradical/?p=135

Vegetarian propaganda or a whole health system that refuses to admit higher fat intake could be healthy? Gasp.....

Having read the book The Okinawa Way I can confirm that the Okinawans are far from vegetarian and they don't eat anywhere near as much soy protein as vegetarian propagandists would have you believe. As I've said before in another thread if you take the rice (a recent addition to their diet) and soy out of their diet you've got something remarkably close to that of both contemporary African and paleolithic hunter-gatherers. Their consumption of protein and fat is still fairly low compared with western diets though and they derive most of their calories from carbs.

Arien Malec
07-28-2008, 10:50 AM
I'm no a statistician so I may be wrong but as I read it the participants in the NEJM study ate fairly similar diets and experienced fairly similar results and as the difference in weight loss between the best and worst diet amounted to about 1/4 lb per month with the best diet resulting in only 12.1 lbs lost over two years compared to the worst with only 7.6 lbs lost over two years I'd say that all three diets produced equally poor results.

Again, clinical research has yet to demonstrate a dietary strategy that actually causes large amounts of weight loss in a population of any meaningful size.

The relevant physiological markers (HDL, HbA1c, CRP) were both statistically and clinically significant given the association of those parameters with health outcomes.

The macronutrient ratios are pretty typical in studies of this kind: the low fat group doesn't eat a diet that is as low in fat as Ornishians would want, the low carb group doesn't eat a diet that is as low in carb as the Atkensians/Eadesians would want. All groups ate low protein, but the low carb group at a tiny bit more there. Low carb group ate 40/40 fat & carb, low fat group ate 30/50. Despite all that, the "low" carb group saw an average 8.4 point increase in HDL, 2 points more than the low fat and the med diet group, with similar improvements in CRP and HbA1c. Life changing? Perhaps not, but life improving...

One more thing that can get lost here: there's some evidence that babies born to mothers with high blood insulin are already predisposed to insulin resistance. For the current generation of people who are likely to receive the "personal training" advice in that started this whole thread off, promoting a high carbohydrate diet is likely to be a disaster.

We are going 'round and 'round in this discussion, but I'll just end this by saying that applying the dietary habits of Okinawans to modern day Americans is counterproductive.

Mike ODonnell
07-28-2008, 11:55 AM
We are going 'round and 'round in this discussion, but I'll just end this by saying that applying the dietary habits of Okinawans to modern day Americans is counterproductive.

and cue RATT.......great band.....

Yep...think we have beat this one to death....lifestyle factors, activity level, quality/sources of macronutrients (where do you get carbs from) and starting point in health (are they already skinny and active or overweight and lazy) are all important factors that must be addressed. Good discussion though.

Kevin Perry
07-28-2008, 01:31 PM
i got lost in this discussion a long time ago.

kudos for getting this thread to 6 pages... should see what else i can post to get you guys ansy

Mike ODonnell
07-28-2008, 04:23 PM
This thread mine as well be labelled Colpo vs Eades with the calorie in and out equation arguement....but I found this article to be interesting for those that still want to read about it

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2008/05/weight-loss-when-its-hard-2-diazoxide.html

So just to summarise this paper. Caloric restriction failed in about 7 weeks. Equal caloric restriction plus lowered insulin levels allowed on going weight loss throughout the study period.

Or maybe, just maybe, you could just accept that in the real world, outside a meatball ward, sorry, metabolic ward, the level of insulin in your blood stream influences your rate of weight loss, specifically your rate of fat loss

which was about this study
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/1911
We previously demonstrated that administration of diazoxide (DZ), an inhibitor of insulin secretion, to obese hyperinsulinemic Zucker rats resulted in less weight gain, enhanced insulin sensitivity, and improved glucose tolerance.

Compared with the placebo group, DZ subjects had greater weight loss (9.5 0.69% vs. 4.6 0.61%, P < 0.001), greater decrease in body fat (P < 0.01), greater increase in fat-free mass to body fat ratio (P < 0.01), and greater attenuation of acute insulin response to glucose (P < 0.01).