ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:33 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:04 am 
Offline
Exalted Seer
Exalted Seer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:20 pm
Posts: 2067
Location: New York City
Tim

I'm on a type of Zone/South Beach/Mediterranean Diet too, with the emphasis on lean meat and poultry, fatty fish, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds, and up to 10 servings of fruits/vegatables a day. While I don't slavishly follow Sear's 40/30/30 ratio of carbs/proteins/fats, he's onto something by suggesting that the three macronutrients should be consumed in closely the same ratio.

But just as important as nutrient quantity is nutrient quality. I avoid refined carbs, sugars and saturated and trans fats. While I'm not cut, I've been able to keep my weight under control.

High carb diets seem to cause a lot of bloating and gas in me, and I've already mentioned the problems that I had on low carb diets. Ths diet seems to work


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:38 am 
The article actually supports what I said in most of it. At the top where it is most negative it is really just saying that the diet goes against current guide lines. I can't remember what issue, but Men's Health had something about metabolic advantage being proven. It might also be on this.

http://www.lowcarb.org/josh_yelon/lowcarb_med.html

If nothing else that has much of the low carb research.

Then think of this, if ratios and carb types are not proven, then why is everything going in the low glycemic direction now? A lot of "calorie is a calorie" diets are going low glycemic. Even Dr. Ornish the king of ultra low fat went to a low glycemic plan a few years ago. Weight Watchers is about the only hold out I can think of with their low fat sugar filled entrees.

Also if you look at the "fat is bad for you" stuff that gets people all freaked out about heart disease, you will see the subjets did not eat low carb. In fact they where eating a high carb, hgh fat diet. Look up any study. You will see they all ate high carb. The difference is the insulin levels. Look at the top at the actions on cellular and metobollic level section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin
Here is the main part of the reason that insulin levels have a lot to do with it. Insulin has a lot to do with cholesterol synthesis.
http://www.tamu.edu/classes/plan/magill ... synthesis'
This has to do with fat storage and use. It talks about diabetes, but it shows the effects of higher insulin levels.
http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=2972

Also keep in mind that meat was most availible source of food for early man. Also some nuts, berries and some veggies. That was the for 2 million years if you count homo erectus. Higher carb foods have only been around for 4000 years. Cultivation of fruit for maybe 6000. That is not enough time to evolve a dependance on high carbohydrate levels, or on simple carbs.

Quite the opposite. We see from all the metabollic syndrome, that maybe we are not meant to eat much of that kind of food.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome

From what I have seen "calorie is a calorie" has been debunked 10 ways to Sunday. Raw calories in, are a very small part of the whole picture of metabolism.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:49 am 
Well Stephen, from your first post it looked like you were supporting low fat and low calorie. That you were saying ratios, macro-nutrient type and carb type didn't matter. Your next post you state being on a low glycemic plan. Maybe I misunderstood your first post.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:20 am 
Offline
In Memoriam: TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:04 am
Posts: 3129
Location: Va Beach, Va
Hi Ironman. Yes, most are going to the glycemic route, but now, the guru's in charge are going more towards the II (Insulin Index) rather than the GI. It's a measure of glycemic loading, being the sum of everything, and how much insulin they stimulate. They pretty much parallel each other, but their are some odd results with a few things. Cheeses and fatty meat which on the GI look good, actually rate moderately hi on the II, and the rices, hich are somewhat hi on the GI, are moderate on the II, so their are a few differences. This is still in the ground floor stages though, so their aren't a whole lot of listings , yet. Over at Berardi.com you'll find more on the subject.
Tim


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:15 pm 
Offline
Exalted Seer
Exalted Seer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:20 pm
Posts: 2067
Location: New York City
Ironman wrote:
Well Stephen, from your first post it looked like you were supporting low fat and low calorie. That you were saying ratios, macro-nutrient type and carb type didn't matter. Your next post you state being on a low glycemic plan. Maybe I misunderstood your first post.


Actually, I was saying that nutrient quality and density should be the most important criteria for selecting foods, although how they get combined together in a meal plan is important. In the case of a short-term crash diet, low carbs worked for me in the past. But no way could I last long term on it. Thanks for the links, BTW.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 4:44 pm 
I didn't read all of the posts. Let me say this: I'm eating like my grandfather used to; a hearty, balanced breakfast, a hearty, balanced lunch, and a hearty, balanced supper.

He also worked, in his retirement, for about 8 hours of the day in his garden. Fresh foods!

The other day I ate oatmeal and beans and fruit, waited an hour, and had a great workout. Great energy. I then went home and had my protein and whatnot. So always distinguish between lousy and good carbs...basically, avoid junk food.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Sean
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:59 am 
DELETED


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group