Where is the Steak

ApeXaviour

rubadub wrote: »

Sounds interesting, especially as many people discrediting diets like atkins will point to the food pyramid as being set in stone and perfectly OK and "common sense", as though straying from it is like challenging the laws of thermodynamics or something

I know I've said this before on this forum but it was created by the entirely benevolent and unbiased US Dept. of Agriculture.
You'll hear people say "Oh but didn't you know, Atkins was obese when he died?", it's untrue. The medical condition that killed him caused him to retain a lot of fluid. And like Eileen said, if you train intensely, it's sometimes recommended to increase your carb intake right after training. Replaces the glycogen in your muscles, inhibiting the release of cortisol, a catabolic hormone. For me that means a piece of fruit or two after the gym, kiwi or banana, both full of fructose.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

g'em

ApeXaviour wrote: »

And like Eileen said, if you train intensely, it's sometimes recommended to increase your carb intake right after training. Replaces the glycogen in your muscles, inhibiting the release of cortisol, a catabolic hormone. For me that means a piece of fruit or two after the gym, kiwi or banana, both full of fructose.

Not the best carb source post-workout tbh, it'll promote liver glycogen replenishment not muscle glycogen. Dextrose or maltodextrin are optimal, but bananas (being higher in glucose than fructose) or grapes for the same reason are ok.

And as daveirl said, Atkins and low-carbing diets are two very different forms of the same general idea.

ApeXaviour

g'em wrote: »

Not the best carb source post-workout tbh, it'll promote liver glycogen replenishment not muscle glycogen. Dextrose or maltodextrin are optimal, but bananas (being higher in glucose than fructose) or grapes for the same reason are ok.

Really? That's interesting, thanks for that clarification. More reading to add to the pile

g'em wrote: »

And as daveirl said, Atkins and low-carbing diets are two very different forms of the same general idea.

Oh absolutely, I never suggested they weren't... It does get my goat however when people make uninformed ridicule on the topic of low carb diets. Atkins bearing the major brunt of this.

EileenG

I've noticed that most of the people who jeer at Atkins have never read any of his books. They have a vague idea that it's the diet where you eat deep-fried cheese and bacon, and absolutely no vegetables or fruit at all.

Even in the first, very strict induction part of his diet, you are supposed to eat 20g of net carbs (that's total carbs minus fibre) a day. Ever eaten a chicken salad in McDonalds? Or even seen one? That salad has 2g of net carbs. So on the strictest part of Atkins, you should be eating the equivelent of TEN of those salads a day.

Edwardius

EileenG wrote: »

I've noticed that most of the people who jeer at Atkins have never read any of his books. They have a vague idea that it's the diet where you eat deep-fried cheese and bacon, and absolutely no vegetables or fruit at all.

Even in the first, very strict induction part of his diet, you are supposed to eat 20g of net carbs (that's total carbs minus fibre) a day. Ever eaten a chicken salad in McDonalds? Or even seen one? That salad has 2g of net carbs. So on the strictest part of Atkins, you should be eating the equivelent of TEN of those salads a day.

Aye, I read some stuff on Atkins a while back and the premise behind it is the same as the zone/paelio diets i.e. insulin control and all that good stuff. Most of the folk I hear talking about it seem to think you can eat as much fat as you want as long as you eat no carbs, which is balls. I think the stage 1 atkins has you eating minimal carbs but when it moves into maintainence it has you eating something along the lines of 50g/day (look it up, not sure about this) from low glycemic load foods. I suggest people read up on it in full before dissing it proper.

Tar.Aldarion

How reliable is this. Seems like a comprehensive study.
http://www.thechinastudy.com/

Anybody else read it?

ApeXaviour

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

How reliable is this. Seems like a comprehensive study.
http://www.thechinastudy.com/

Anybody else read it?

I've heard of the project that that book stems from. And while interesting, what it has found is far from revolutionary.

That book, well I'm sceptical. I won't get it because it apparently presents its evidence very selectively, pulling wild conclusions from them. It's mostly correlation too, and clearly has the vegan bias in mind.

Tar.Aldarion

While reading it, not that I have a great memoryof it, ages ago... I don't recall any wild conclusions. It did have convincing reading about the causes of heart disease, cancer and Type 2 diabetes etc.

I'm not sure how biased it is, why do you say that?
Are the authors vegans, and were so before the book? That doesn't make them biased but they might be, dunno. i'd be interested to hear. They very well might be.
To be fair to the book it does devote a large section to controversy about the book.

Edwardius

that website wrote:

“In this project, however, I uncovered a dark secret. Children who ate the highest protein diets were the ones most likely to get liver cancer...” He began to review other reports from around the world that reflected the findings of his research in the Philippines.

Wonder if they mention the sources of the animal proteins, the nature of the "plant-based foods" and how the diets of the different mucho-cancer/less-cancer people compared, what the sample size was, did he conduct the former study in a cancer ward? Are these studies published in internationally recognised journals? Most of the paleio stuff I've read (not all of it but enough that I don't want to read any more for a while) has extensive references to sports/nutritional journals and works exactly as is suggested in books (initial tiredness from missing the carbs, initial fluid loss followed by mucho energy/motivation as time goes on). It'd be good to see what somebody who read this book has to say. It'd be even better to hear how the guidelines/principles of this book impact on general wellbeing/athletic performance/weight loss (my order of importance, yours might be different) from someone who actually applied them strictly to their diet. Reading is all well and good and I suppose people like to feel informed so they can tell someone else they're wrong. However, debating these matters should take a back seat to comparing the efficacy of their application with first-hand evidence. If some quack tells you the grass is blue, you'd damn well go to the window to make sure it wasn't, so why trust some quack that tells you that eating x/y/z is bad/fattening. He might have an agenda and so might the guy in the other corner.

Re. protein: it's also very important to know what percentage of their respective diets came from protein as once it forms more than 40% of the diet the kidneys become very sad pandas (ref: the paleio diet for athletes, I think). Too much of anything is bad. Not turkey though!

Tar.Aldarion

I haad fake turkey, yum! :P

I must have a read of the book, I only had a quick browse before as it was not mine, it was some doctor's. Father of a friend. You know what to get me next christmas nutrition forum.