The FastDay Forum

[carorees]

As I said somewhere, we evolved in an environment where fat, carbohydrate (especially sugar) and salt were hard to come by. We crave them for that reason but our bodies are not able to handle them. I believe that a true Paleo diet would consist of mostly vegetables with small amounts of meat/fish/eggs and very little fat, sugar, grain and salt. And of course variations in availability resulting in feast and famine.

Of course I'm not following my own advice...(apart from the feast and famine bit)

Just spotted this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... e-age.html

thanks Caroline, and from the same page I see this link, but as I am not a subscriber I can't read the full article...

thanks Caroline, and from the same page I see this link, but as I am not a subscriber I can't read the full article...

From the article preview:

Early humans had diverse diets, depending on where and when they lived, and archaeologists are finding ever more evidence that even our earliest ancestors ate more grains than we once thought.

Who were our "earliest ancestors"? Click the link and you find that the "evidence of grains" is from a site dated to about 23,000 years ago. I don't dispute the point that this shows grain consumption in the (upper) paleolithic era, but it's just false to call these people our earliest ancestors. The species homo sapiens was born during evolutionary bottlenecks that occurred long before that.

I think there's good reason to be suspicious of most grains, for many reasons, not all related to obesity. Even Paul Jaminet, who rejects the very low carb approach, thinks rice is the safest grain to consume. Personally, I try to control my carb intake, but I don't make a fetish of it anymore. I really don't want my life to be about what foods I don't eat.

"I really don't want my life to be about what foods I don't eat"

As Rufus pointed out that is a big part of the appeal of 52. It's just also a convenient way to test short term low carbs, and of course the Bristol 2day Atkins/5 days Med diet has put the spotlight on it.

While I consider that the debate on whether our early ancestors had access to fat, sugar and grain to be usefull I think that there must be more recent data on how the western diet has changed in the latter part of the last century to the present day and how it has effected the population's health.

The research done by Dr. Ancil Keys lead him to conclude that saturated fat from animal sources was the main cause of heart disease. He was able to persuade the medical establishment of his findings and since then the dietry reccomendations of government in the majority of Western countries has been to limit fat and replace the calories with those sourced from carbohydrates.

Saturated fat was chased out of our diet and frowned upon but sugar and starch were seen as a provider of energy that can be offset by engaging in exercise. It is thought by many that the rise in obesity and diabetes in the last 30 years co-incided with this change in public health policy.

To get back to Phoenix's original question regarding whether a low carb diet is good or bad I think it depends very much on who the diet is applied to and whether that person is tolerant of carbs and can process them.

As Phoenix asserts that she has managed on a high carb diet with plenty of grains etc. I know that if I were to follow the same dietry regime I would become very overweight and react to the diet by having hypoglycemic episodes. All of this suggests that not everyone has the same physiology when it comes to diet.

The problem with the current public health policy regarding diet is that it treats everyone the same. It asserts that everyone should eat a low fat, high carb diet and that those who don't tolerate this and develope diabetes for example should resort to medication rather than try their luck with a low carb diet.

It can be argued that people eat what they want to eat regardless of public health policy. Nevertheless because sugar and starch have 'got off lightly' compared to the well funded, government backed campaigns against saturated fat there is an abundance of sugar and starch based food to choose from. Many of these claim to be 'healthy'such as breakfast cerials and low fat, 'healthy snacks.

Baked beans and tinned spaghetti are considered to be healthy choices yet these are high in starch and swim in a sugary, salty sauce. Many people become ovrweight or obese while eating what is considered a healthy diet, avoiding excess saturated fat in its various guises.

[carorees]

I think your point about whether one can tolerate carbs is important and fits with the study showing that some lose weight well on a low carb diet but much more slowly on a low fat diet while for others it is the other way around. The people who were insulin resistant did better on the low carb diet unsurprisingly.

I think that there must be more recent data on how the western diet has changed in the latter part of the last century to the present day and how it has effected the population's health.

Going back a bit further this is revealing here http://www.saga.co.uk/health/healthy-ea ... style.aspx It was a big surprise to me that "Once you allow for the high baby and child mortality rate, our great, great grandparents' life expectancy was much the same as ours. But, while many of us nowadays depend on medical help in our final years, the majority of mid-Victorians enjoyed a highly active old age."

Basically the 'secret' was loads of fruit & veg, plus continual physical 'activity' (not quite the same as aerobic exercise) In these circumstances GL didn't appear to matter greatly.

I doubt the "secret" involved a lot of fruit, at least not in these Northerly latitudes. Scots only have fruit in the house if someone is ill No fridges, no air freight, little fruit.

I had noticed in graveyards that there were plenty of people who died in the 1800s in their 80s and 90s, which was a surprise at the time but the child mortality issue makes sense.

"our Victorian forebears consumed eight to 10, all seasonal and organic" As you suggest most were veg, though Apples & cherries are sid to be common.

On fast days carbohydrates that release significant amounts of insulin can increase cravings and impede fat burning.

Oh dear. I'm a carb fiend. On fast days I save all my 500 cals for a carbtastic binge on 12 huge BBQ rice cakes It takes me an hour to munch through them all and I feel nicely satisfied afterwards. Why would this impede my fat burning? *feels dim*

Yup, the scientists keep trying to reduce us all to simply plumbing but everyone has to find their own path don't they? So far there doesn't seem to be one single path that suits all occasions. Personally I have tons more energy and feel far better if I ditch the carbs but it doesn't suit everyone. I have gone more Paleo and less Atkins since I started 5:2 but I really can't do grains.

Oh dear. I'm a carb fiend. On fast days I save all my 500 cals for a carbtastic binge on 12 huge BBQ rice cakes It takes me an hour to munch through them all and I feel nicely satisfied afterwards. Why would this impede my fat burning? *feels dim*

125g of glucose will hit your bloodstream over 2-3 hours, causing a large increase in insulin levels which will turn off the fat release from storage. The excess glucose will be put into storage as glycogen and then fat, as you won't use the glucose at the rate it is going to appear from eating a pile of rice cakes.

So, not a good idea to eat those delish fruity buns that I just had for lunch... I'd better get busy and active right now!

I think that it is a matter of what one likes, what one is used to eat, where one comes from, what the land produces, what a stomach "prefers" to digest etc.
My ancestors from my mother's side come from Asia Minor and they were eating meat everyday, while they fried things in butter. Were they healthy? Oh yes. The previous 5 generations died after 80 years old. Would I follow that diet? No way!
I choose to follow the Mediterranean diet, with which I grew up. I eat meat and chicken once or twice in a fortnight, fish once a week and the rest is veggies, fruit, pulses and wheat products. Some are white some are wholewheat.
During my fast days I eat only carbs. They are the only food that fill me for hours and the only food that my stomach can tolerate eating after it remained empty for quite a while.
Both of the times I did a test for food intolerance, carbs were on the list of the foods that I could eat as many as I liked.
The reason I posted all that is because I believe that as we are all unique, our bodies are unique and what they like to be fed is also unique.
I'd rather listen to my body than to a study that would tell me to eat less carbs and more protein and have a stomach problem for the rest of my life, just because it's supposed to be good for me. Stomach problems aren't good for me, hence less carbs isn't good for me.

It seems to agreed by most authorities that individual 'tolerance' to carbs vary greatly. The Tim Noakes link Phil T posted it is very explicit about that. It's not so easy to know where one fits within that - though Noakes states a family history of adult onset diabetes is a marker.

I also learnt from the Noakes link that 'banting' (ie low carb) was the standard weight loss method for 100 years unitl 1959!