The FastDay Forum

I can only speak for myself because there are differing degrees of low Carb woe. For me it means low sugar, minimal refined grains and artifical foods, I can't say none at all because I still have meals out. I do include high GI fruit in this, The only fruit I have whilst I am still on a weight loss regime is low GI berries and I restrict high GI veg like parsnip, below ground veg etc. I do prefer to call my normal way of eating as low sugar which covers food and drink although I still drink alcohol at weekends. Like I said you still have to be in the land of the living without being excessive.

Chris x

Out of curiosity, are we talking about ALL carbs? Because it seems that many people say "carbs" but mean "sugar and flour".

LCHF, the Swedish version which is a ketogenic diet, is very strict with all carbs. The fewer, the better. The baseline for most is <20 grams per day. Some can eat more and remain in ketosis. With that small amount it doesn't matter much what kind of carb you eat. All carbs (yes, there are rare exceptions but for the sake of this discussion lets not allow facts to get in the way of the truth) are broken down to glucose in your body. From a biochemistry point of view the type of carb does not matter much but higher GI foods typically create more cravings than lower GI goods so the general advice in the low carb world is to eat as few high GI foods as possible.

Personally I am of the opinion that health wise the fewer carbs the better, but there is also a balance to strike with convenience and enjoyment. So far I am enjoying 5:2 where I avoid most sugar from snacks but eat any food I like to eat more than I enjoyed strict low carb.

On another but related note a couple of overweight kids I am related to cut added sugar only out of their diet 10 weeks ago but eat any food they like. They have lost 13 and 10 lbs respectively.

A lot of people are jealous of you TML. I am horrible with pasta. I can eat three bowls of it and be stuffed for about... 60 minutes or so and I am hungry again. :/ I shouldn't say hungry. I should say that I want to eat again... Big difference.

Last year the big Swedish study came out basically saying that LCHF was good sort term for weight loss, seeming to give good labs and help with satiation, etc, but long term caused cholesterol to rise and presumably cardiovascular disease risk. Conventional medicine were like, "ah, ha!" as it seemed to explain the apparent dichotomy between what diets like Atkins showed on short term and what other studies were showing WRT fats.

Here is a summary:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... ad/258343/

The 25yr Swedish study:
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/11/1/40/abstract

Of course, nothing is ever quite so simple and depending on your personal history and risk factors each needs to make their own choice about what is best for them.

I will put a link to Jennie Brand Miller's Low GI newsletters for anyone interested.

It is a free newsletter and is pertinent to our queries I believe.
http://ginews.blogspot.com.au/


There is research in this area which I found very apposite, after many years of weight watchers regimes.
IMO the planet needs us to care what we eat, and so for me an increased vegetable diet is a preferable choice.
IMO, also, meat production is becoming more and more synthesised and probably 'medicated', eg antibiotics in feed lot foods. Less grass fed meat reaches us even in Australia where the paddocks are able to produce very good meat protein.

I think the LOWGI research is reliable and interesting...

Twentyfive-you asked about a book on coconut oil...The Coconut Oil Miracle by Bruce Fife changed my opinion on what fats to cook with. I use it in place of oil in all my baking. Sometimes have to use it instead of butter too since daughter is dairy free...fortunately it is yummy!

[Tracieknits]

Well I can't stay on a low carb, high fat diet. I feel AWFUL on that way of eating, and utterly miserable. My biodad is a huge fan of atkins and for years would push me to the diet. I would watch him lose 40 or 50 pounds very very quickly. He would look healthy for about a month, then he'd go back to his old habits and put all of the weight back on. About when he got 50 pounds overweight, he'd start Atkins again, lose the weight very quickly, coast for a little while, then gain the weight back. He repeats this cycle about every 12 to 15 months. Yet he would rather do this than find a way to maintain a healthy weight. I don't get it.

I personally think the Atkins diet is misery and I don't care one bit if it's healthier or not. It's not a diet I can sustain, so it's not a diet for me.

This thread has turned into a fascinating read and leads me to think that just cutting out sugar in all it's forms, and foods it turns up in, may well be enough for me; eating real food I.e. not refined or ready meals or multiple ingredient items, is the road to follow and keeping protein to around 60g a day will help too.
Obviously a fast or two a week is fairly essential for health markers, and so is enjoying your life and what it sends you. :0)

good plan Azureblue. I am not on any 'diet', i tweak to suit me and its based on low sugar natural food. Looks like we have a few tweakers here. Hi Izzy.

I think that there is a small problem with the definition "low carb". Because carbs are a huge group and although most of you are eliminating a part of that group, to the inexperienced eye it seems something different.

DomDom, when I want to eat and not feel hungry for hours, I eat a bowl of wholemeal pasta with grated cheese. Also, pasta, rice and porridge are the only things that my stomach tolerates when it's going through a rough patch.

Izzy, moderation is a personal thing. Only I know what is moderate for me and only you know what is moderate for you. What I am trying to say is that eliminating food groups for NO reason (you have a reason, for example) doesn't sound very wise to me.

[carorees]

Last year the big Swedish study came out basically saying that LCHF was good sort term for weight loss, seeming to give good labs and help with satiation, etc, but long term caused cholesterol to rise and presumably cardiovascular disease risk. Conventional medicine were like, "ah, ha!" as it seemed to explain the apparent dichotomy between what diets like Atkins showed on short term and what other studies were showing WRT fats.

Here is a summary:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... ad/258343/

The 25yr Swedish study:
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/11/1/40/abstract

Of course, nothing is ever quite so simple and depending on your personal history and risk factors each needs to make their own choice about what is best for them.

I've just followed up the link to the Swedish study and looking at the full text of the paper, it does not exactly say what the link to the summary reports! In fact it does not look at people who swapped from a low fat to a low carb diet. It looks at fat and carb consumption in the whole study population and notes that at first overall fat consumption decreased and carbs increased but later on this was reversed, at the same time cholesterol levels at first decreased and then later increased while BMI continued to increase over the whole study period. The authors point out that the LCHF diet was promoted in recent years and speculate that this caused the increase in fat and decrease in carb consumption and that this is related to the change in cholesterol.

Men and women in northern Sweden decreased their reported fat intake in the first 7 years (1986–1992) of an intervention program. After 2004 fat intake increased sharply for both genders, which coincided with introduction of a positive media support for low carbohydrate-high-fat (LCHF) diet. The decrease and following increase in cholesterol levels occurred simultaneously with the time trends in food selection, whereas a constant increase in BMI remained unaltered.

However, these observations do not necessarily mean that the change in fat/carb ratio is a cause of the cholesterol findings. The authors point out:

Our study design does not allow a causal evaluation of the relationship between the increased fat intake since 2004 and the increased cholesterol values after 2007, although the parallel trends would suggest such a relationship.

There were many other things that changed over the 25 years of the study, including wine intake, a change from potato and crispbread as the principal source of carbs to pasta and rice, and a change in the types of fats consumed.

This survey is not actually looking at the long-term effect of a LCHF diet at all as we have no idea how many people in the survey were actually eating a LCHF diet. It seems more likely that the promotion of the diet has removed the demonisation of fats in the public consciousness but failed to emphasize the need to remove sugar and starch from the diet in parallel with the increase in fat consumption. Eating a high fat diet combined with a high carb diet definitely leads to obesity and high cholesterol!

The paper does not report whether there was a change in the total energy consumed per day over the course of the study. One might assume that if BMI was progressively increasing that total calories were also increasing and it could be that the increase in fat consumption was not balanced by the decrease in carb consumption. As fat is so energy dense, any increase in weight fats needs to be balanced by a 2.5-fold decrease in weight of carbs consumed in order to have the same energy intake. The foods that are worst for our health combine carbs and fats (i.e., cake, chips etc) so whether you are cutting carbs or fats, these foods should still be kept as treats rather than every day foods!

My take on the LCHF diet is that for most of us, a very low carb diet is not necessary but that decreasing carb intake is probably a good thing. A decrease in carb intake of only 50g per day would decrease calorie intake by 200cals which would add up to a significant decrease in energy intake. For some of us, who are sensitive to carbs (i.e., with diabetes/pre-diabetes) a lower carb diet is necessary. I am currently trying to keep my carb intake to around 150g per day which is fairly easy to do and represents about a 50-75g drop in carbs over my former diet.

I think that we should not be so afraid of fats that we seek low-fat diet foods (because these are often sugar-laden), rather we should moderate our consumption of sugars and starches, eat lots more vegetables and not worry too much about fats but also not unnecessarily increase fat consumption.

Lastly, the relevance of the increase in cholesterol may also be open to debate...

I think it's individual. I'm vegetarian for moral reasons and I've always eaten fairly low fat, even as a kid, because high fat doesn't agree with me. So I eat pretty high carb, although admittedly complex carbs for the most part. Even fast days I eat my oats.

I was listening to an interview with the doctor that wrote the book on "wheat belly" syndrome. He was basically wording everything as an absolute where everyone needs to cut out wheat and other carbs. Then mid interview, I forget the question, he slipped up and had to admit that some people are just sensitive to it. The interviewer let it drop. :-/

I also have noticed over the years that anyone that starts eating more organic, free-range and whole foods for any reason begins to feel better and healthier. Whether that is low carb/high fat, paleo, vegetarian/vegan, etc. doesn't much matter. What matters is cutting out the artificial lab-grown nonsense.

And I'm not posting this to bash on low carb/high fat diets. I just don't think it's a good idea to push one WoE and to vilify all others. People have to find what works for them.

I also have noticed over the years that anyone that starts eating more organic, free-range and whole foods for any reason begins to feel better and healthier. Whether that is low carb/high fat, paleo, vegetarian/vegan, etc. doesn't much matter. What matters is cutting out the artificial lab-grown nonsense.

This is very interesting because I have a friend who had the opposite experience. She went from eating whatever her parents garden in Greece grew to shopping from a supermarket in New York City. She didn't change her diet (she was an actor/dancer), she only started buying the stuff.
When she came to visit in the summer we were all shocked because she went looking like a model and she came back, well, almost fat!!! She was also miserable and had various of allergy reactions.
During her stay here she lost all the weight and after another year there she dropped her studies and came back. I can't say that I blame her. That was the first time in my life that I came across the madness of mutant food and it was quite an eye opener!

[Betsysgr8]

I think it's individual.

And I'm not posting this to bash on low carb/high fat diets. I just don't think it's a good idea to push one WoE and to vilify all others. People have to find what works for them.

Exactly!

Not sure what you mean, TML13. I wasn't all that clear I know! Still working on my morning coffee.

For people replacing a typical American diet of fast/processed food and eating more fresh veg/fruit, free-range meat, made-from-scratch foods, they tend to feel better. I'm in the US. I grew up eating mostly what grew in my grandparents garden and animals that they raised and butchered themselves. Fast food was a "treat". It wasn't until I was a teen and could indulge my sweet tooth on my own and, even worse, when I moved away and ate more from the grocery store that I had weight problems.

I wonder if your friend was eating as healthy as she thought? Lots of nasty things lurking on even fresh veg/fruit here. Some organic foods are grown near the foods that have herbicides and insecticides sprayed on. Kinda' defeats the purpose.

She was following her Med diet, like she did here in Greece. Only what she was eating here was pure, while what she was eating in NY probably wasn't.
She didn't know that, nobody knew that 20 years ago... And even now that we know we still prefer American Oreos from the European ones, LOL!