ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:03 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:51 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
And I'd also like to point out that I've taken entire months off from grains (When dieting, I remove most grains, not because they are bad - but because I can eat a whole loaf of bread and still be hungry.. just not that filling)

I did not feel either better or worse while consuming or not consuming grain.

Trust me, it isn't bad for you like you seem to think to non-celiacs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:26 pm 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:12 am
Posts: 78
callipygian50 wrote:
Form me, this would be a heck of a lot of trouble and expense to just to indulge your odd theory. If you want to do this yourself, I have no problem with that. If you want to fund a large double blind experiment, go ahead. If you have any links to real literature, let me know. Meanwhile, I'm just going to believe your theories are similar to all the other weird made up diet theories I read in diet books.


Some papers on WGA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4510 ... d_RVDocSum

This one shows that WGA mimics insulin.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3768 ... d_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6895 ... stractPlus

The above are rat studies and show that it causes damage to the microvilli. It causes Celiac in the rats.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3906 ... stractPlus

This one shows that the damage to microvilli reduces enzymatic activity in rats.

Lactase is one of those enzymes and is one of the reasons for Lactose intolerance.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6278 ... d_RVDocSum
It also damages the ability to digest triglycerides.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1791 ... d_RVDocSum

The above shows that people with lactose intolerance recover their tolerance when removing wheat from diet. Showing that Lactose intolerance is really a cause of WGA.

I would think that you might want to read this article instead. Peter is very good and provides lots of papers to read. If you are into that thing.
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/ ... ctose.html

Another one.
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/ ... 20wheat%3F

We know enough mechanism, on how it damages our body. I rely on the mechanisms more than studies (with their large scope of mis-interpretation). You know there is not a single mechanism known by which saturated fat causes damage (as opposed to trans-fats or Omega6 fats). But you have a huge host of mis-interpreted studies showing saturated fat damaging human body.

There is some obesity research on rats, which show that fat causes obesity faster than carbs, but they only use a zero nutrient diet for the rats, to bring out the results faster. It is quite possible that the results are this way because of the zero nutrient diet. Why fats cause faster obesity than carbs is intriguing, but I have no idea why it could happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:38 pm 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:12 am
Posts: 78
NightFaLL wrote:
anandsr21 wrote:
Do you know people who eat a lot, but don't gain any fat? How do you explain those guys.


Faster metabolism, more active both in a sedentary setting (foot tapping, etc.), more NEAT in general.

They simply burn more calories, or equal calories, than they eat.


Also, most 'hardgainers' don't eat nearly as much as they think. I'd love to see someone eat what I *want* to eat on a regular basis and not gain weight, it'd be physically impossible - I guarantee you that.


Metabolism is the key factor here. Not the calories. If you can increase your metabolism you can eat more. Actually low carb increases your metabolism.

Some hardgainers do eat a lot. My brother was very thin, and he literally used to eat food enough for 3-4 people. He got thrown out of all you can eat messes because he ate so much. I do eat a lot, compared to other people, but that doesn't even approach him any where. I can finish biryani made out of 1 Kg of meat (with bones) with 300gms of uncooked rice, and lots of ghee, at lunch. How much calorie that is? Granted I don't do that regularly. But when I was young I could do that regularly. He could do at least twice of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:47 pm 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:12 am
Posts: 78
NightFaLL wrote:
And I'd also like to point out that I've taken entire months off from grains (When dieting, I remove most grains, not because they are bad - but because I can eat a whole loaf of bread and still be hungry.. just not that filling)

I did not feel either better or worse while consuming or not consuming grain.

Trust me, it isn't bad for you like you seem to think to non-celiacs.


Is it most grains are all grains. Is wheat part of those not removed grains. You have to be strict with WGA to actually heal out. There must be people who are immune to it. And you could be one of them. That doesn't mean everybody else is.

The clinical definition of celiacs does not take into account those that have the problem, but don't have any outward appearance of it. Like I said Lactose intolerance is a manifestation of WGA sensitivity. You must definitely know some people who think that it is just our inability to digest milk. Papers are attached to my other mail.

Like you can get Tuberculosis, but have no symptoms of it. My wife had it for a year (infection in the kidney), and the only symptom for it was a slight elevation in body temperature. Nothing that would be treated as fever. We found it only when one and a half liter of pus was collected. Then too the doctors (actually two of them) refused to believe it was anything more than a figment of her imagination. Finally we got a doctor that ordered an ultra sound.

I know it is bad for me. I had severe digestion problems which I fixed after getting rid of it. It also runs in my family. My brother cured his eczema problems, after he got rid of it. But I or my brother have no coeliac symptoms.

It is because of these problems that I started to research diet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:19 pm 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:12 am
Posts: 78
callipygian50 wrote:
anandsr21 wrote:
... I had gone down to 160, then eased back up, because of the symptoms.

What are the symptoms? (I think Jungledoc already asked this.)

Mostly low blood pressure, low temperature. Dizziness. Sometimes I will feel faint when getting up from bed. This happens when I do low carb and exercise together. So now I have given up low carb, and reduced exercise to short weight lifting sessions two times a week. I gained back 10pounds. Not a bad trade off I guess.
Quote:
anandsr21 wrote:
I am trying to increase fruits and raw vegetables in my diet, to reduce oxidative stress, and giving rest to my adrenals, but I don't feel like eating them much, so I don't know if that is really healthy.

I'm surprised to learn a cultural vegetarian wouldn't eat many fruits or veggies. But then the world is full of surprises. I don't think eating veggies raw is all that important, but nearly every diet published suggests more veggies. Eating too few is almost certainly unhealthy. ( I'm not buying your theory about your adrenals, btw.)

Cultural vegetarians don't eat meat, but thats all. They will eat all sorts of junk that does not have meat in it.
We do eat a lot more vegetables compared to people around us. But the point here was reducing grains and legumes and replacing them with vegetables and making potatoes the staple.
Quote:
Quote:
I am not saying anything like that. I am just saying that there is quite a bit of science that shows that wheat is bad. I don't think Gluten is the real bad agent. It seems to me the worst offender is WGA, which most people don't know about. It damages the gut lining. A damaged gut lining is what allows gluten, casein, peanut proteins, etc to enter our blood system. Without a damaged gut lining it would not be a problem.

A lot? Is there any science in favor of this idea? I think this sounds like make up bunk used to sell more expensive grains.

I have given a number of papers on the ways WGA causes damage above. Those are on mechanisms by which it does damage. These papers are the real deal, not an epidemiological study.


Quote:
If you were in a habit of cutting yourself, would you feel the pain. It is like when you are in a very smelly room, you don't smell it, but if you go out of the room and re-enter you will smell it for a small time.

Interesting analogy... but do you actually know anyone with celiac? They don't stop noticing the symptoms.
[/quote]
No, its not that much of a problem in India. Isn't it curious. I suspect the reason is that our guts are not in as bad a shape as in western countries because we grew up on mother's milk.
Quote:
Quote:
Take the one month test. Get rid of all wheat for a month, and try to reintroduce, you will know the effects. If you don't get them, then you are practically immune to the problems. Some people maybe immune but they should be rare, from the looks of it.


Form me, this would be a heck of a lot of trouble and expense to just to indulge your odd theory. If you want to do this yourself, I have no problem with that. If you want to fund a large double blind experiment, go ahead. If you have any links to real literature, let me know. Meanwhile, I'm just going to believe your theories are similar to all the other weird made up diet theories I read in diet books.


Yes, it is tough. It is a challenge. Starting this thread made me interested in taking up this challenge. Yesterday, I did not eat the Pizza. I hope I will be able to say no for the whole month. It is a problem living with people making such delicious food :-(. It would be so much more easier if I did not have these temptations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:55 pm 
Offline
Novice
Novice
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:14 pm
Posts: 68
anandsr21--
You link a bunch of papers. Reading quickly I discover things like gluten is bad for celiacs, and not-too horrifying things like in some way, wheat supposedly acts like insulin. So what if it acts like insulin. Lots of people want to control insulin, but it's hardly a poison and something acting like insulin aren't causing damage.

So could you help me out and point out the papers that show wheat causes damage? I'd especially like to know which of the papers suggest wheat does damage that results in this--

Quote:
A damaged gut lining is what allows gluten, casein, peanut proteins, etc to enter our blood system. Without a damaged gut lining it would not be a problem.

And that further shows the sense in which these enter our blood stream is a bad thing. ( After all, food is digested. Otherwise, it's pooped out. Gluten, casein and peanut protein aren't fibers. So, in some sense, they pass through the gut -- but in what way is this a bad thing? I've eaten peanut butter sandwiches washed down with milk and haven't had any horrible symptoms. I'm pretty sure I've digested the food.

So what, "damage" are you worrying about?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:03 pm 
Offline
Novice
Novice
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:14 pm
Posts: 68
anandsr21 wrote:
No, its not that much of a problem in India. Isn't it curious. I suspect the reason is that our guts are not in as bad a shape as in western countries because we grew up on mother's milk.


My sister was breastfed. Celiac is fairly rare in western countries too. Currently, believing you are gluten intolerant seems to be fashionable. Lots of people are self diagnosing it. Few have taken the test.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:06 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Posts: 7489
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea
anandsr21 wrote:
No, its not that much of a problem in India. Isn't it curious. I suspect the reason is that our guts are not in as bad a shape as in western countries because we grew up on mother's milk.

You don't think most people in the West grew up on mother's milk? Bottle feeding started fading from fashion in the '60, was pretty uncommon by the late '70s.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
anandsr21 wrote:
Ironman wrote:
Quote:
Gluconeogenesis is very thermogenic. It is possibly the reason why Carnivores don't have much brains, even though they have simpler guts. Read the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis and Klieber's law.


What? We practically ARE carnivores. Look at a comparison of digestive systems. The denatured protein of cooked meat in early hominids actually had a lot to do with us developing better brains.


We are practically carnivores, but not obligate carnivores. We do not convert enough amino-acids to protein to survive just on muscle meat. There are strict limits to how much proteins we can digest safely.

To quote Cordain, using the known maximal rates of urea synthesis [65 mg N/h - kg (body weight )], “The mean maximal protein intake for the average weight U.S. male (189.4 lbs ) is then 270 g/day (range 233-322 g/day), and for an average weight female (162.8 lbs ), 246 g/day (range 208-288 g/day).”

[From Cordain L, The Evolutionary Basis for the Therapeutic Effects of High Protein Diets. Published in The Performance Menu as part of The Protein Debate between Cordain and T. Colin Campbell. I think you can still find this online.]

Also that is just producing glucose. If you are avoiding carbs, then you also want to avoid glucose, so high protein is not the way to go.

Secondly. We have 2-15 copies of AMY1 genes, while chimps have only 1-2. Why? It indicates that we are designed to consume starch.

http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2009/08/p ... art-1.html

Quote:
Quote:
I have tried to find the papers involved, but my opinions have been formed over the years, and have not been able to find much of the papers involved. I do go more logically than by studies. If it makes sense to me, as in it does not contradict anything that I know then I am more likely to accept it. I am not rigorous about it. But I think I have them essentially right.


That is the problem right there. Confirmation bias is a good way to be wrong about a great many things. Not that you are wrong about everything. Some of your opinions are correct. However you say a lot of other things that kill your credibility.


English is not my first language, and I make mistakes.
I meant here is that I have seen these papers before but have not been able to find them now. There is much research done by Loren Cordain on these topics. But difficult to find them.

I understand about confirmation bias. I do know that I say many things that are more of a hunch, rather than confirmed things. The problem is that the research is going in the wrong direction. They have got it fixed that fat is bad and the whole research is being done to prove it. Also biological systems are much more complex and it is easier to confirm your biases.


Quote:
We are practically carnivores, but not obligate carnivores. We do not convert enough amino-acids to protein to survive just on muscle meat. There are strict limits to how much proteins we can digest safely.

In this section I have quoted again, you are right on the first two, but the 2nd is wrong. There is no evidence to show that anyone with **NORMAL, HEALTHY** kindneys has any limits on protein.

Gluconeogenesis is a very inefficient process so you really don't have to worry about it. Your excess protein is not going to turn into glucose. It just passes through. Try eating an excessively large amount of lean protein at one time and see what happens. You will get gas and maybe even the protein craps. This shows that it just goes through.

You and Nightfall both seem to think that just because you eat something your body is obligated to digest it. That is just plain wrong. If it can it will, if it can't it won't.

Lack of research just means that is something we don't know. You can't just go by hunches. Besides a lot of your hunches must have been made quite some time ago because now we do have the data.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
NightFaLL wrote:

Well, most of the information I've gotten was through a study I read + the articles about DNL on lyle mcdonald's site, so it's entirely possible the information I've got is off as I typically try to fact check from multiple sources.

Just, from what I've read, it typically DNL is not a significant source of fat synthesis in humans, more that it contributes through the blocking of fat oxidation.

As for the calories thing, I'm referring to the way we reference kcal when referring to humans. Tons of scientific evidence has shown that when it comes to losing weight - a caloric deficit is required (not counting glycogen/water loss).

Most low-carb or low-fat diets simply mask the caloric deficit by removing entire food groups and then saying 'eat as much as you want!' because they know the chances of you being able to eat at maintenance or higher while removing an entire food type is pretty low.


DNL is a type of fat synthesis. That's what happens to excess glycogen. Years ago people thought it was not significant, but it is.

I was referring to kcal also. Kcal is a heat measurement. They get it by burning macronutrients in a blast furnace. Your body is exponentially more complicated than a furnace. Wood is indeed calorie dense but you can't digest it.

There is no evidence showing that losing weight requires a calorie deficit in the way you mean it. Removing macronutrients do not always cause a calorie deficit in the way you mean it either.

The only type of calorie deficit required, is in the blood. As in what actually goes in and out of cells, and what is left over to go into fat cells or what is needed to come out of fat cells. Even that isn't always the way in 100% of circumstances.

The calorie deficit going from the label on your food, to the counter on the treadmill and everything in between doesn't mean crap. You cannot get an accurate measure like that. You have many many complex chemical reactions in between those. Your body is not a box where you just put things in and take them out. Just because you ate it does not mean it's going to get digested, not to mention what sort of hormone responses it may or may not set off.

Then you have the individual nature of how everyone handles carbs and the "speed" of their metabolism.

If you have evidence for the calorie myth please post it. I have been at this for several years and nobody has been able to do so yet. In fact I have a book that contains 65 pages of nothing but sited studies, nearly all of which are applicable and all of those point in the opposite direction.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:16 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:12 am
Posts: 78
Ironman wrote:
Quote:
We are practically carnivores, but not obligate carnivores. We do not convert enough amino-acids to protein to survive just on muscle meat. There are strict limits to how much proteins we can digest safely.

In this section I have quoted again, you are right on the first two, but the 2nd is wrong. There is no evidence to show that anyone with **NORMAL, HEALTHY** kindneys has any limits on protein.

Gluconeogenesis is a very inefficient process so you really don't have to worry about it. Your excess protein is not going to turn into glucose. It just passes through. Try eating an excessively large amount of lean protein at one time and see what happens. You will get gas and maybe even the protein craps. This shows that it just goes through.

You and Nightfall both seem to think that just because you eat something your body is obligated to digest it. That is just plain wrong. If it can it will, if it can't it won't.

Lack of research just means that is something we don't know. You can't just go by hunches. Besides a lot of your hunches must have been made quite some time ago because now we do have the data.


I agree that it will pass through, as it has no other way for it to go. But that is OK only when there are enough calories otherwise. If not then the body will try to get at that energy. That is when it starts to get poisonous. Rabbit Starvation is a fairly well documented phenomenon. It started from NightFall's 70%, 15%, 15%. That would be a dreadful diet on a long term basis. And it seemed by his post that it was his normal diet.

I am not sure about the kidneys capacity, because it would never get tested unless you have only one kidney. The body has a limited capacity to convert protein to glucose. So the ammonia created will be limited. I would think if you have a single kidney then, you would get problems with very high protein diets.

I would think it a waste of money to add the expensive protein in diet just to $h1t it out.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:17 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:12 am
Posts: 78
Jungledoc wrote:
anandsr21 wrote:
No, its not that much of a problem in India. Isn't it curious. I suspect the reason is that our guts are not in as bad a shape as in western countries because we grew up on mother's milk.

You don't think most people in the West grew up on mother's milk? Bottle feeding started fading from fashion in the '60, was pretty uncommon by the late '70s.


I didn't know about it. That is what we get to know in India. Bottle Feeding is on the rise there, unfortunately.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 8:32 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Posts: 7489
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea
anandsr21 wrote:
Jungledoc wrote:
anandsr21 wrote:
No, its not that much of a problem in India. Isn't it curious. I suspect the reason is that our guts are not in as bad a shape as in western countries because we grew up on mother's milk.

You don't think most people in the West grew up on mother's milk? Bottle feeding started fading from fashion in the '60, was pretty uncommon by the late '70s.


I didn't know about it. That is what we get to know in India. Bottle Feeding is on the rise there, unfortunately.
And besides, who says our guts are in "bad shape"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:49 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6322
Location: Halifax, NS
Actually, our guts are in bad shape. Many auto-immune deseases may be linked to gut flora, either a direct cause or agrivated by it. Diet plays a big role as does excess antibiotics in factory meat. Medically prescribed antibiotics are relatively known qtys but they're a small part of what we actually ingest. By daughter's UC flair up last summer was triggered by a C Diff infection. A healthy gut probably would have prevented that episode which nearly cost her colon. It took a few Remicade treatments to take care of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:56 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:12 am
Posts: 78
stuward wrote:
Actually, our guts are in bad shape. Many auto-immune deseases may be linked to gut flora, either a direct cause or agrivated by it. Diet plays a big role as does excess antibiotics in factory meat. Medically prescribed antibiotics are relatively known qtys but they're a small part of what we actually ingest. By daughter's UC flair up last summer was triggered by a C Diff infection. A healthy gut probably would have prevented that episode which nearly cost her colon. It took a few Remicade treatments to take care of it.


Oh I didn't realize that it could be mainly due to the factory meat.

I have a friend in Toronto. His son is also having problems. But they do not eat meat. I would think that something is in the plant food too. They do eat a lot of junk (so called healthy, packaged foods).


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 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