tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-132603862024-03-23T13:25:00.529-05:00Weight of the EvidenceHealth = Lifestyle, Nutrition and ActivityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger589125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-3374867665039542382013-01-19T10:01:00.001-06:002013-01-19T10:01:03.057-06:00Join Me on Facebook TooWeight of the Evidence is on Facebook too.<br />
<br />
The group page (private) is <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/379948618686440/" target="_blank">Weight of the Evidence Group Page</a><br />
<br />
Once you ask to join, you'll be approved. The group is moderated and the group is private, so discussions within the group are not publicly visible.<br />
<br />
The main page (public) is <a href="https://www.facebook.com/WeightOfTheEvidence" target="_blank">Weight of the Evidence</a><br />
<br />
That is an open page where I post links to articles here and elsewhere that are of interest. Discussion there is open and seen by anyone who opens the page.<br />
<br />
I hope to see you on Facebook, and I'll be continuing to post here too!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-65727271345408253692012-12-31T11:43:00.001-06:002012-12-31T11:44:15.530-06:00Wishing You a Happy New Year<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: large;">“We will open the book. <br />Its pages are blank. <br />We are going to put words on them ourselves. <br />The book is called Opportunity and its first chapter is New Year's Day.”</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
― Edith Lovejoy Pierce</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-35525432662311939482012-12-27T09:47:00.001-06:002012-12-27T09:47:20.972-06:00The Protein Leverage Hypothesis<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Back in 2006 I stumbled upon the research of Dr. Stephen Simpson and wrote <a href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2006/09/again-its-protein.html" target="_blank">Again It's the Protein</a>, highlighting the findings from a small study that looked at protein requirements and how altering protein density in the diet may effect consumption of calories. <br /><br />The study was borne from the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2005.00178.x/abstract" target="_blank">Protein Leverage Hypothesis</a>, authored by Simpson and his colleague David Raubenheimer in 2005. I found it after reading the above study data and have remained intrigued by the concept ever since.<br /><br />Briefly, the Protein Leverage Hypothesis (PLH) holds that our protein requirement influences our consumption of food, with excess carbohydrate and fat consumed to meet requirements when foods provide low protein density, and less consumed when foods are protein dense. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Their mathematical model was formed from data in animal studies that found various insects and mammals regulate total consumption of food around protein requirements - in poor protein environments, excess is consumed to meet requirement, and in protein rich environments too little is consumed to meet energy requirements. Their emphasis was that protein - what we tend to ignore in our diets because it remains fairly constant - is prioritized over fat and carbohydrate, and the changing dietary landscape of foods provides for less protein, leading to over consumption to meet requirements.<br /><br />In their paper above, they laid out four scenarios that look at the implications if protein is indeed prioritized over fat and carbohydrate.<br /><br /><b>1. There is a shift to the diet containing a higher percentage of carbohydrate and fat</b><br /></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This could occur where fat- and/or carbohydrate-rich foods are more accessible, more affordable, in greater variety, or more palatable than alternatives, leading to people effectively being trapped on a suboptimal diet. Under such circumstances, maintaining the amount of P eaten requires over-consumption of C+F.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /><b>2. There is a shift to the diet containing a higher percentage of protein</b><br /></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If the diet contains a higher percentage of P, yet the absolute amount of protein eaten is regulated to the intake target, the result will be that C+F intake will fall, bringing the body into energy deficit and leading to weight loss. </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />The example noted, <i>[a]n increase of 1.5% in dietary P from 14% to 15.5% results in an 11% decrease in C+F eaten.</i><br /><br /><b>3. There is an increase in the requirement for protein</b><br /></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If diet composition remains unchanged, yet protein requirements increase, then over-consumption of C+F will result. Shifting the intake target ratio from 14% to 15.5% P in the diet leads to a 13% increase in C+F eaten – with attendant risks of weight gain.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />They provided the following example as to how such might occur - <i>[o]ne source of protein loss is hepatic gluconeogenesis, whereby amino acids are used to produce glucose. This is inhibited by insulin, as is the breakdown of muscle proteins to release amino acids, and therefore occurs mainly during periods of fasting. However, inhibition of gluconeogenesis and protein catabolism is impaired when insulin release is abnormal, insulin resistance occurs, or when circulating levels of free fatty acids in the blood are high. These are interdependent conditions that are associated with overweight and obesity, and are especially pronounced in type 2 diabetes. It might be predicted that the result of higher rates of hepatic gluconeogenesis will be an increased requirement for protein in the diet. Unless either more high-P, low-C+F items are included in the diet (i.e. scenario 2), or rates of removing excess co-ingested C + F are increased, weight gain will occur. And the system becomes unstable – further increases in fat deposits [especially abdominal fat ] will increase protein needs further, which will drive even greater weight gain.</i><br /><b><br />4. Diet remains unchanged but exercise levels decline</b><br /><br />For this we find, </span><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It seems that while humans respond by increasing intake following very high levels of energetic expenditure, we are less responsive to lowered needs. One interpretation is that our intake target and the associated regulatory mechanisms controlling food intake have evolved to assume a certain level of non-protein energy expenditure. But if this energy is not actually expended, the excess is stored as fat. [...] Therefore, the result of lowered levels of exercise is, in effect, to lower the position of the intake target on the C+F axis, while causing P requirements to increase (scenario 3). Unless the diet changes towards a higher percentage of P, the result will be weight gain.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />They noted, <br /></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"The scenarios introduced above are not independent. Either shifting the diet composition to a lower percentage of P (scenario 1), or effectively doing the same by having low levels of energy expenditure (scenario 4), will result in over consumption of carbohydrate and/or fat to maintain protein intake. This in turn will predispose towards weight gain and lead to disinhibition of gluconeogenesis, which will increase protein demand (scenario 3). Unless this increased demand is met by selecting high-P foods, protein appetite will drive increased intake of C + F, resulting in further weight gain, and so on in a vicious cycle leading to obesity and its associated diseases."</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />In their conclusions, they wrote, <br /></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"The key assumption upon which our hypothesis resides is that when humans are forced to trade-off protein intake against that of carbohydrate and fat on nutritionally unbalanced diets, physiological regulatory mechanisms prioritize protein. If this is true, then all else that we say must follow – it is a mathematical inevitability. [...] Given the implications that follow from our hypothesis, we would suggest that this is a vital subject for future research in human nutrition. In reference we suggest the design of such experiments. Finally, our ‘vicious cycle’ provides a candidate-positive feedback mechanism for the spiral into morbid obesity. It predicts a key role of hepatic gluconeogenesis in the development of obesity."</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />To say I was intrigued, is an understatement; while the paper had its flaws, the concept had merit and had been validated in various animal models. Additional study would hopefully bear fruit and further refine the concept or have it dismissed as yet another dead end in nutrition research.<br /><br />In the years since, there have been a number of trials designed to test the PLH, and I'm in the middle of reading through some, but wanted to post this to whet your appetite before I dig in and take a look at those studies and the findings. The above is the prelude, to give you information about the posts I'll make in the coming week, so you have the background information to work with the data I'll go through!</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-20231792725873985022012-12-23T16:43:00.000-06:002012-12-23T16:46:06.770-06:00Gnosticism is Alive and Well<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Over at Conditioning Research, Chris posted a short, but concise article - <a href="http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com/2012/12/gnosticism-in-health-and-fitness.html" target="_blank">Gnosticism in Health and Fitness</a>; where he notes <i>"[i]ncreasingly I am finding that so much of the fitness & fitness blogosphere is a strange place which I am seeing more as a form of gnosticism." </i><br /><br />He continues by explaining the meaning of the term and and continues that <i>"[w]e are on a constant search for the 'special, hidden knowledge'. The are looking for the secrets: the special diet, the new routine, the amazing new supplement or exercise. And on this search we become vulnerable to the gurus and to the marketing people."</i><br /><br />After noting a number of ways many are enticed by the 'gurus' (they're good salesmen, it's easier than researching yourself, distrust of the mainstream, etc.), he asks, "What if it is all a lot simpler?"</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>Simplicity, Persistence, Habit<br /><br />What if it is all actually a lot simpler. I think it is time to reject the search for the special knowledge and embrace the basics. A sensible diet. Exercise. Sleep. Social interaction. Stress management. Time outdoors.<br /><br />Most of all though the need is for persistence. Just keep going. </i></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />For anyone really wanting to know the secret to good health - there it is, in the open, free. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It is as simple as that. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If you look up at my tag line, it's the same as the day I started this blog back in 2005 <b>"Health = Lifestyle, Nutrition and Activity"</b> - the trifecta for health and well-being; the mind-body-spirit connection so to speak, so often praised, yet it remains elusive for many.<br /><br />I was going to write a post about long-term success - but really, it comes down to simplicity, persistence and habit. <br /><br />Gosh, who knew I only really needed three words?<br /><br />It is what it is. <br /><br />It's why I wrote an entire series on what I believe are some of the long-term goals of the short-term Rules of Induction.<br /><br />It's why, since launching this blog, my focus was and remains on nutrient-density, not absolute carbohydrate grams, percentages of calories, or even absolute calories; it's all in context.<br /><br />It's why I believe calories, in context, do matter.<br /><br />It's why I pay particular attention to protein and meeting essential amino acid requirements.<br /><br />It's why I believe it's about making choices and forming good habits.<br /><br />It's why I believe in tweaking and making observations along the way to formulate your own personal dietary approach for the long-term.<br /><br />It's why don't think a very low-carb diet is the optimal diet for the entire population all of the time and why the evidence doesn't support that view except for some unique populations (ie. type 2 diabetes, apple-shaped PCO).<br /><br />And it's why my radical view point remains (gasp) that if you fine tune your food choices, opting for nutrient-dense real foods, your carbohydrate intake may be lower than some or seemingly higher than others, but it will be unique to you and to your goals, health and activity levels.<br /><br />My view may come from the fact I started low-carb before it was trendy, before it caught on, and before it made it to prime-time. In some ways I was sheltered from the quirkiness that we now see in the ever-evolving low-carb community, where once the biggest debate was how long to stay at 20g or less if one did Atkins, or whether the Atkins' model to restrict carbohydrate to 20g then increase them slowly was better than the Zone's 30:30:40 ratios from the start or Life Without Bread's 72g recommendation was ideal.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />We're now a community with extremes going from one end to the other, from zero carb to eggfests; from 85% fat intake to serial finger pricking multiple times daily; from only grass-fed is worthy to the idea that grains are the devil; and from the idea that you won't gain weight if you keep carbs low enough to the belief that those who include 'safe starches' are just addicts needing validation. <br /><br />All the while these extremes are couched with the individual assured that they need to find what works for them, but give it a try, you never know; and with often confusing contradictory advice given when one needs some help. Increase fat, decrease protein, increase carbs, decrease calories, take supplements, don't take iron, get your thyroid tested, low-carb doesn't affect thyroid, see your doctor, doctors are quacks who know nothing about nutrition, take fish oil, no take vitamin D, do reistance training, no do cardio, no don't exercise it'll make you hungrier - have you seen the gammut of contradictions out there when one asks the simple "why am I stalled?"<br /><br />Why do we find it so difficult to suggest looking at the obvious first?<br /><br />Now while I bet you are thinking I'm talking calories, I can say not this time; I'm talking about looking at whether one is meeting essential nutrient requirements; while you do that, you're going to have a good look at your calories, carboohydrate, protein and fat too, but the big question in my mind is are you malnourished or eating a nutritionally deficit low-carb diet - whether you're in a calorie deficit (at a good level or too low) or not is secondary.<br /><br />Yet as a community, you'll find a hundred different things to answer why you're stalled, other than the obvious; the most likely answer will be whatever the flavor of the day favorite is because as a community we're still in search of the "special, hidden knowledge" rather than what common sense would suggest.<br /><br />If as a community we agree that carbohydrate restriction is superior - then we must answer why; and "why" is not because 85% fat is sustainable and healthy, or shunning all plant foods is ideal - it's because a "well forumlated" carbohydrate restricted diet, when done properly, meets your essential nutrient requirements and does it better than traditional approaches. You cannot do that at the extremes, but you can when you take a reasonable look at the evidence and understand why micronutrients matter in the context of our physiology, which lays at the center of controlled-carb nutrition.<br /><br />While gnosticism is alive and well in the low-carb community, the question I have is what do we do about it? Please feel free to comment and debate in the comments section!</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com148tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-45529269899660924672012-12-20T10:45:00.001-06:002012-12-20T10:55:33.834-06:00Does "Nutritional Ketosis" Require 85% Fat?<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">For some if you bring calories into the discussion of low-carb diets, you're pontificating, unless of course you're not.<br />
<br />
<i>"...of course, if one eats too much fat during that low-carb diet, you're not going to lose weight; there are differences in metabolism, but calories count in the process of eating a low-carb diet."</i><br />
-Steve Phinney<br />
August 25, 2012<b>, </b><a href="http://www.askthelowcarbexperts.com/2012/08/23-long-term-stalls-weight-gain-even-on-a-well-formulated-low-carb-diet-dr-stephen-phinney/" target="_blank">Ask the Low Carb Experts Podcast</a><br />
<br />
I start with Dr. Phinney since he's co-author of <i>The<b> </b>Art & Science of Low Carbohydrate Living</i>, <i>The Art & Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance</i>, and <i>The New Atkins For You.<br />
</i><br />
A funny thing happens when you read all three books - you find they all explain the role of calories in a low-carb diet. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">Imagine that.<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">
In <i>The New Atkins for You</i> we find, "Don't count calories, although we ask you to use common sense. In the past, some individuals made the mistake of thinking they could stuff themselves with protein and fat and still lose weight. If the pounds are falling off, forget about calories. But if the scale won't budge or it seems to be taking you forever to lose, you might want to do a reality check, caloriewise."</span></blockquote>
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">
</span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">
In <i>The</i> <i>Art & Science of Low Carbohydrate Living</i> we find, "The definition of 'maintenance' is that your daily energy intake equals your daily expenditure"</span></blockquote>
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">
</span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">
Additionally there is, "In order to judge how best to formulate the mix of macro-nutrients in a low-carb diet, it is helpful to visualize how your total energy intake will change from induction to maintenance. As indicated in the graph on the next page, a typical male with a BMI of 34 might start out eating 1600 kcal in induction while his body burns 3200 kcal per day (thus the weight loss). But after losing 50 pounds to a BMI of 27, his daily energy intake will need to increase substantially to eventually maintain him stable at that reduced weight."</span></blockquote>
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">
<br />
In <i>The Art & Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance</i>, calories aren't the focus <i>per se</i>; rather formulating a ketogenic macronutrient mix for performance is detailed with two key features - that initially carbohydrate intake, to keto-adapt, should be less than 50g carbohydrate each day, and that once adapted one may remain keto-adapted with up to with up to 100g of carbohydrate each day; and that protein intake should be between 0.6g and 1.0g per pound of lean body mass (LBM). In the book, the authors refer back to <i>The Art & Science of Low Carbohydrate Living</i> for those who wish to lose weight. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">The salient point about calories however is that once you've determined protein and carbohydrate, your remaining calories come from fat to fuel your energy needs for performance, with this being especially true for those who do not have high levels of body fat.<br />
<br />
In the podcast above, Dr. Phinney took pains to emphasize that a "well formulated" low-carb diet restricts carbohydrate, is moderate (not high) in protein and is high in fat. Yet what that means wasn't well defined. Details are found in the above books and the formulation is not based on percentage of calories from each macronutrient, but rather expressed as specific grams for carbohydrate and protein requirements based on height and gender (<i>The New Atkins For You</i>), based on kilograms of LBM (<i>The Art & Science of Low Carbohydate Performance</i>) or 1.5g to 2.5g of reference weight (<i>The Art & Science of Low Carbohydrate Living</i>). </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">Interestingly, in the last one, detail was provided to show how initially on a calorie restricted low-carb diet, protein intake will appear to be high as a percentage of calories - yet when factoring total calories being expended through weight loss, it really is less a percent of the total calorie expenditure; and that once one refines calories for maintenance of body weight, percentage of protein usually falls within "...15% and 25% of your daily energy intake coming from protein."<br />
<br />
So in each of the books, calories are not ignored, but fundamentally part of what you eat to lose or maintain weight. More importantly, each details why within context of a low-carb diet - which for weight loss reduces calories and stabilizes hormonal function, and in weight maintenance keeps body weight and hormones stable. '<br />
<br />
Over the years I've written quite a lot on how to do a low-carb diet that allows for weight loss while being nutrient-dense. From my experience, three things are needed for long-term success - one is adequate calories because if you restrict calories too much, that is counter-productive to weight loss as the body makes adjustments when energy intake is too low to prevent additional weight loss; two, a nutrient-dense selection of foods each day, to provide adequate intake of essential nutrients from EFA, EAA, vitamins, minerals and trace elements; and three, a calorie deficit. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">As you lose weight, I've long recommended looking at protein intake and calories if you stall - you see, protein intake confounding weight loss is not a new concept - since 2005 I've been writing about the critical importance of protein and how much one needs to meet EAA based on their weight. In August,<a href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2012/08/protein-is-essential-but-too-much-is.html" target="_blank"> I posted a chart</a>, based on weight and the standard 0.8g/kg body weight minimum protein required daily and the range of 1.0-1.5g typically needed when one is in ketosis to fuel gluconeogenesis. I noted in that post, that some individuals, due to higher activity levels, may need up to 1.5g/kg body weight to meet needs, and that for most, the 1.0g-1.2g/kg seemed to work nicely.<span style="font-size: small;"> That chart is helpful to understand how protein needs change with weight loss and can help with adjusting protein intake as one loses weight.</span><br />
<br />
So the question remains, is Jimmy Moore following a "well formulated ketogenic diet"? <br />
<br />
While he is in ketosis ("nutritional ketosis"), he is not within the well detailed guidelines in the above books. That's okay too - <b>his body, his experiment </b>- I'm writing this to provide accurate information to anyone out there whom may wish to attempt replicating what Jimmy is doing, me pointing to the areas that may be problematic if one duplicates exactly what Jimmy is doing based on the little information he's provided in the last six months. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">Jimmy has provided scant detail about what he is eating in grams or calories, instead sticking to percentages of calories and a few representations of meals that were indeed within those ranges. The interesting thing though is that none of the above books specify a percentage of calories - they look at absolute grams for protein and carbohydrate and explain how these work out to ratios, highlighting how percentages changes from weight loss to maintenance<span style="font-size: small;">; not percentages to def<span style="font-size: small;">ine how you eat when losing weight.</span></span><br />
<br />
A couple of examples:<br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">
In Chapter 6 of <i>The Art & Science of Low Carbohydrate Living</i>, the authors note "Second, when someone goes on the Atkins or another low-carb diet, they usually lose weight, right? Much of the weight loss comes from body fat, which typically provides up to half its daily energy from "inside" (ie. endogenous stores) during the initial weight loss phase. So if someone is eating 1400 kcal/day consisting of relatively lean "protein foods" that are helf protein (700 kcal) but burns 2800 kcal per day, his/her dietary protein intake is actually supplying about 25% of their total daily energy need, falling below the empiric 30% ceiling noted above. But to the casual observer who is ignoring the contribution of body fat stores, the actual food being eaten appears to be high protein."</span></blockquote>
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">
</span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">
Chapter 16: "In order to judge how best to formulate the mix of macro-nutrients in a low-carb diet, it is helpful to vizualize how your total energy intake will change from induction to maintenance. As indicated in the graph on the next page, a typical male with a BMI of 34 might start out eating 1600 kcal in induction while his body burns 3200 kcal per day (thus the weight loss). But after losing 50 pounds to a BMI of 27, his daily energy intake will need to increase substantially to eventually maintain him stable at that reduced weight." The example given considers that his energy requirements are 2800 kcal a day, with 150g of protein (600 kcal) and now 100g of carbohydrate (400 kcal), leaving 1800 kcal from fat. That would represent 64% of his energy requirement each day.</span></blockquote>
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">
<br />
So what is Jimmy doing? Let's look first at protein intake. Jimmy says he averages 80g a day and that represents 12% of his calories. <br />
<br />
Is that enough?<br />
<br />
When he started at 306 pounds, no; at his last weight of 245.8, no. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">In fact, it appears Jimmy is eating below his protein requirements during this experiment - something that for long-term success I do not recommend.<br />
</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Using my chart online, at 306 his minimum requirement was 110g, good level for GNG 135g; at last weight minimum 90g, good level for GNG 115g.</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"> </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">Using <i>The Art & Science of Low <span style="font-family: Arial;">Carbohydrate</span> Living</i>, which references back to T<i>he New Atkins for You</i>, it would be based on height and gender, 95g-199g</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">Using <i>The Art & Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance</i>, with 155.92 pounds LBM in November, would be 92g-156g</span></li>
</ul>
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">
<br />
Taking a look at carbohydrate, representing 3% of his calories, he's averaging 20g-25g a day. He's been doing this now for six months and has not yet increased his carbohydrate intake, basically remaining within what is traditionally called "Induction" level carbohydrate. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">He may want to re-read The New Atkins for You, where they agree with Atkins' original concept to increase carbohydrates as you lose weight to broaden your horizons and variety. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">"Don't make the mistake of staying in Induction too long just because you love how the pounds are peeling off. Eventually it's important to move through the phases to ensure that you have cured yourself of your old habits and can reintroduce foods without halting your weight loss or provoking cravings. Losing weight fast is exhilarating, but it will likely be a temporary fix if you don't find your comfort zone for eating in the "real world".</span></blockquote>
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">
<br />
Lastly, he details that his fat intake represents 85% of his calories each day. It is interesting to note that none of the menus within the above books has that much fat - the range is between 68% and 74%, varying daily if one were to just follow those menus; that range falls within the range you'd find in the original Atkins' diet books published between 1972 and 2002, and the most recent <i>The New Atkins For You</i>. Personally, I do like <i>The New Atkins For You</i> as it explains a lot more of the science behind why low-carbohydrate diets are effective for weight loss.<br />
<br />
My recommendation to anyone looking to experiment with "nutritional ketosis" is to first read the books above to understand how to do it properly, they provide details about what your protein requirements are, how to increase carbohydrate and include a wider variety of foods as you lose weight, what level of fat is needed, and more importantly, how to transition to maintain your weight. If you don't want to buy new books and have the older versions of Atkins' books, re-read them, the older version is very similar without need to buy a ketone meter and strips. If that's you thing and you feel you need to, fine measure blood serum, but remember, you do not need to.<br />
<br />
If you just want a quick refresher on following Atkins, here is my <a href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2012/08/review-time.html" target="_blank">Review Time</a> post from August.<br />
<br />
Whatever you do, remember, calories do matter - in context; that context is nutrient-density and endocrine function. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span lang="0" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">Jimmy Moore has spent incredible time repeating that his "well formulated" ketogenic diet is very high in fat, 85% of calories - before you leap to do the same, because ketosis does not require 85% of calories from fat, please educate yourself and understand how it's really done!</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com165tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-50454600130362841262012-12-14T08:45:00.001-06:002012-12-14T08:52:42.064-06:00The Calorie Talk Taboo<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">For a fair number of people, talking about calories is akin to blaming the victim; the implication of sloth and gluttony, being lazy or pigging out - blame heard without words spoken (or written).<br /><br />This comes from, I believe, decades of a message from experts - that if the overweight and obese would just eat less and move more, they'd lose weight. If only it were that simple!<br /><br />A few years ago I wrote about this in <a href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2008/01/poor-math-skills-leading-to-weight-gain.html" target="_blank">Poor Math Skills Leading to Weight Gain</a> and noted, <br /><br /><i>"We're repeatedly told that we suffer mindless eating habits, a toxic food environment, and a host of other influences which lead us to overeat; all of which can be overcome if we simply set our minds to choosing foods wisely, strictly rationing our intake with portion control methods, and sticking to recommended intakes of each food group to target particular ratios of calories from carbohydrates, proteins and fats.<br /><br />When doing these things fails to produce long-term weight management, the individual is often the target of blame - they failed by failing to follow the recommendations. They failed to have adequate willpower to continue as directed. They failed to restrict calories sufficiently enough for the long-term to maintain weight effectively.<br /><br />Rather than challenge the concept - consciously restricting food intake - we instead accept that such is normal and focus on the failure as an execution problem by the individual, often stated many different ways, but always boiling down to calories in exceeding calories out if the individual could only get it right then all would be well.<br /><br />This makes weight loss and management a math problem.<br /><br />In order to lose and maintain weight one must then be good at math in order to be able to constantly be vigilant in counting their calories in each day to keep consumption within target outputs.<br /><br />So, maybe it isn't willpower, but poor math skills leading to long-term failure to maintain weight loss?<br /><br />No, I don't really believe that...but, it does open the door to consider the idea that weight isn't simply a math problem that is easily solved by changing inputs and outputs of numbers; that in the long-term exerting will to restrict calories over desire to eat is not really all there is to successful weight management."</i><br /><br />I wrapped up with <i>"Weight is chemistry. Chemistry thus influences obligate requirements for nutrients and energy, as well as our ability to exert our will over our desire."</i><br /><br />Over the years, I've noted that while those who initially follow a low-carb diet do not need to count calories, calories do count - in context. The context is physiology, the chemistry within our metabolism which is driven by our endocrine system. It isn't simply a math problem to calculate input of calories and output of energy expenditure - it requires actual nutrients within the context of those calories because a calorie is not a calories in our body - a sugar calorie acts differently in our body than a fat calorie. Context.<br /><br />And while I've made it clear that blaming the victim is an unscientific approach to resolving obesity, it continues and those who gain or remain above desired weight feel it when calories come into the discussion about weight loss and maintenance; yet even with hurt feelings, calories remain in the proper scope of discussion for weight management.<br /><br />If you look back at <a href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2012/12/so-much-for-cake-let-them-eat-steak.html" target="_blank">Forget the Cake, Let Them Eat Steak</a>, I specifically included a rough estimate of just how few calories Jimmy Moore required to gain the six pounds he did earlier this year before starting his nutritional ketosis experiment - the equivalent of 1.5 tablespoon of butter. If you're a low-carber, you know that's something easy to miss day-to-day!<br /><br />But truth be told, I'm not even convinced Jimmy's weight gains are simply too many calories!<br /><br />Remember, I hold that calories in, calories out (CICO) matter in context. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">And I do think Jimmy's experience is a necessary exercise in discovering why he's gained weight while maintaining a carbohydrate restricted diet. Often the examples we see with weight gain are clear - they've increased carbohydrate back to levels that again disrupt the endocrine system and create a milieu for fat storage and weight gain. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">That is <b>not</b> Jimmy's experience now or in the past - each of his gains and losses have been within the context of a controlled-carb diet. <br /><br />When Jimmy posted <a href="http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/jimmy-moores-n1-experiments-nutritional-ketosis-day-181-210/16756" target="_blank">his latest update</a>, he linked to my post and said <i>"Was it the keto-adaptation or the calorie-cutting that has worked in producing the weight loss success I’ve seen? If you ask me, I say <b>WHO CARES?!</b>"</i><br /><br />Well, I care - not only about Jimmy as a person and friend, but also for those within the low-carb community, who despite doing everything seemingly right, fail to lose weight or gain and will do anything - even something extreme - to lose the weight.<br /><br />So then, what has been going on? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">What context might explain Jimmy's weight gains and losses? <br /><br />And more importantly, why are those important considerations for anyone ready to jump on board the nutritional ketosis bandwagon and do what Jimmy's doing?<br /><br />If nothing else, Jimmy is a prolific blogger - he's got websites, podcasts, YouTube videos, a forum, twitter and facebook - and this leaves us with a lot of information to ponder about his weight maintenance, gains and losses.<br /><br />Going back and looking at each period where Jimmy gained enough weight to motivate a weight loss attempt, we can see - <i>clearly</i> - he was in a calorie deficit. And while it would be infinitely easier to simply chalk his gains and losses up to calories, I think, after reading back on dozens of his posts, it was more than that; and something I almost missed in my haste to write this post.<br /><br />I've written a lot about how low-carb diets often work so well because they resolve underlying metabolic perturbations; endocrine issues like high insulin or hyperglycemia; they set-the-stage, so to speak, to enable to calorie restriction (often spontaneously) necessary for weight loss in a more 'righted' endocrine environment. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Since it is the endocrine system which largely controls our weight and hunger, it needs to function well for weight loss and maintenance. Yet, there are some endocrine issues which a diet alone cannot resolve - they are genetic - and Jimmy has, we've learned through his posts, hypogonadism.<br /><br />Simply understood, that's where you, if male, have low testosterone, elevated LH and/or FSH, and often it leads to high serum ferritin (iron). </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Jimmy has shared with readers that he has this condition - and it's something, that after reading up on it last night, one cannot change with diet alone. Now this isn't an excuse - but a reason that helps explain why Jimmy's appetite is such that he's driven to eat more than he requires. Those with hypogonadism are often insulin resistant, suffer abdominal obesity and gain weight easily.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It doesn't take long to look back at Jimmy's eating habits to realize he has a big appetite and eats a lot. This isn't because he's lazy or a glutton, it's from within him, genetic, from his endocrine system working out of balance.<br /><br />In the right context, calories come into play as a reasonable explanation of weight loss and gain, and before starting his nutritional ketosis experiment, Jimmy started on hormone replacement therapy - an estrogen agonist and testosterone cream is addressing the issues in his endocrine system that his diet does not address. <br /><br />He also added Glycosolve, a berberine supplement that helps with glycemic control.<br /><br />He started routine blood donations to address his iron levels.<br /><br />And he's recently re-introduced an exercise regime to build muscle, so yes, he's increased his level of activity too.<br /><br />Jimmy has not simply changed his diet - he's changed the context of his endocrine system AND his diet. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Whether or not he wants to recognize it or not, the diet part has led to the necessary reduction in calories which is explaining his weight loss; but the other changes are important factors, ones that I do think will make his weight management long-term easier this time.<br /><br />He doesn't have a broken metabolism - but he has had unaddressed endocrine issues; those now being addressed should help him long-term because, as I've said, context with calories matters.<br /><br />In an upcoming post I'll look at nutritional ketosis and hope to explain benefits, risks and whether one should consider it long-term or not.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com90tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-79467572579061591622012-12-06T12:37:00.005-06:002012-12-12T08:24:53.019-06:00So Much for Cake, Let Them Eat SteakJimmy Moore <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc96Lk1VVS4&feature=player_embedded#!" target="_blank">recently exclaimed</a> "...did you know that if you ate too much protein, it's actually just like eating chocolate cake? I'm not kidding, it is!" (see 21:10 in video)<br />
<br />
Take that in for a second. <br />
<br />
Mull it over.<br />
<br />
Now then, when someone, <i>even a friend</i>, comes out with something so gobsmacking ridiculous, I can't remain silent anymore.<br />
<br />
No Jimmy, eating too much protein is not just like eating chocolate cake; sorry, it just isn't. My readers can quick run-down of the fate of <a href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2012/08/protein-is-essential-but-too-much-is.html" target="_blank">excess protein here</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So then, Jimmy has, historically, had a roller coaster relationship with the scale. His ability to gain and lose show he does not have a broken metabolism. In fact I'd say his metabolism is rather robust in its persistence over the years to remain doing what it's designed to do, store and release energy as needed.<br />
<br />
His weight ranges since 2004 show a pattern of gain-loss that repeats, year after year, with each successive high higher than before.<br />
<br />
2004 - 410<br />
2005 - 230<br />
2006 - 220-245<br />
2007 - 212-250<br />
2008 - 257-274<br />
2009 - 239-260<br />
2010 - 265-289<br />
2011 - 248-300<br />
2012 - 300-306 <br />
<br />
In May 2012, having reached 306 pounds, Jimmy again modified his diet to lose weight. And at last check-in, he was down to 256 - honestly, I congratulate him on his efforts and his success to date. But I cannot, for the life of me, understand his fascination with attributing it to just too much protein, when his calorie intake is the real problem and his current dietary change, while it's increased fat as a percentage, has actually reduced fat in absolute grams, along with calories.<br />
<br />
When Jimmy started 2012 at 300 and gained to 306 by May, this helps us understand just how little his excess calorie consumption was - to gain 6 pounds in 135 days took only 156 extra calories a day, or about 1.5 tablespoons of butter or mayo; the absolute easiest things, in a low-carb diet, to add a bit too much of daily.<br />
<br />
Simple math can figure out what Jimmy changed for calories without factoring in other changes he's made with hormone replacement, supplements and increased activity.<br />
<br />
At 300 pounds, Jimmy required at least 3600 calories a day to maintain that weight based on his basal metabolic rate + the Harris Benedict Formula for his active metabolic rate. <br />
<br />
At his reported 175g a day average at the time, that means from real food protein, he was averaging 1870 calories a day from meat, eggs, cheese, etc. since those foods have an average 60% fat and 40% protein mix. <br />
<br />
Add in another 130 calories from carbohydrate and we're up to 2000 calories. <br />
<br />
That leave us to figure out his fat intake. <br />
<br />
To 6 pounds required 156 extra calories a day, on top of his other 1600 calories remaining from fat, to meet his energy requirements, thus he was consuming an estimated 1756 calories from fat, or 195g a day in fat; add that to the 60% from his meats, and we get 3,756 calories, 175g protein, 32.5g carbohydrate, 320g fat - his baseline to calculate changes to his diet in his latest dietary modification. <br />
<br />
In macronutrient ratio terms, that was 77% fat, 18% protein, and 3% carbohydrate. In line with what Jimmy has reported in the past.<br />
<br />
He writes that he's now consuming 85% fat, 12% protein and 3% carbohydrate; and has said he's averaging 80g of protein each day.<br />
<br />
That looks like he increased his fat, and he keeps insisting he's increased his fat intake - but he hasn't - he's actually reduced not just his protein, but also his fat and his calories; allow me to explain.<br />
<br />
If he's consuming 80g of protein, that's 320 calories and 320 calories from protein at 12% of his diet means he's consuming an average of 2,630 calories a day. With 80 calories from carbohydrate (3%), that leaves 2230 calories from fat, or 247g of fat.<br />
<br />
Wait a minute!<br />
<br />
That's not just reduced protein, it's also less fat, and a significant reduction in calories!<br />
<br />
With an average estimate of 2,630 calories a day. With 80 calories, 20g from carbohydrate (3%), and 320 calories, 80g from protein, that leaves 2230 calories from fat, or 247g of fat.<br />
<br />
247 is less than 320, is it not?<br />
<br />
2630 is less than 3756, is it not?<br />
<br />
And if that isn't enough to get you to think about it, consider this - to lose 50 pounds in six months, the boogeyman calorie theory holds that one would need a calorie deficit of about 1,000 calories a day.<br />
<br />
Jimmy's calories are not precisely thae same each day, but if you subtract 2650 from 3756, you get 1106 calories a day less than he was eating at baseline.<br />
<br />
Now look up - Jimmy is in range of the calorie deficit that explains his weight loss, with less calories, less fat and less protein.<br />
<br />
By golly, he's eating less, and even moving more.<br />
<br />
And to be clear, this does not mean I think only calorie in, calories out matter; but Jimmy's experience over the last six years show how strong an influence calories, in a carbohydrate restricted context, do matter.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com57tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-10459229099165239182012-08-28T07:54:00.002-05:002012-12-20T10:02:26.313-06:00Protein Is Essential, But Too Much is Too MuchWhy do I consider protein the important focus for the short and long-term?<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
In a word, it's satiety. <br />
<br />
That and animal based protein is nutrient-dense; when in included at adequate levels in your diet, it is much easier to meet nutrient needs each day.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Most calorie restricted diets not only reduce calories, they significantly reduce protein intake. I think this is the cause of the hunger often reported once an individual is into their lower calorie diet after a few weeks. While starvation does work in the short term, long-term 95% of people who lose weight will gain it back within three years, 99% will within five.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
When you do not eat enough protein, you are starving, slowly but surely; and that holds true even in a state of excess calorie consumption.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
Protein is a really neat macronutrient, not only does it provide us with essential amino acids, it also is used throughout the body to repair and build muscle, cells and tissue. Amino acids are critical to maintain our health, but they're not really a great energy source - when the body's energy sources are low, it begins to degrade proteins for use as an alternative energy source. Amino acids can be classified as glucogenic or ketogenic.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FqNsZ7lOxXo/UDy_v-21ExI/AAAAAAAAAc4/XhioItt0Z1Q/s1600/PROTEIN.gif"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FqNsZ7lOxXo/UDy_v-21ExI/AAAAAAAAAc4/XhioItt0Z1Q/s320/PROTEIN.gif" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5781706852684600082" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 274px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 320px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
Glucogenic amino acids can be degraded to pyruvate or an intermediate in the Krebs Cycle. They are named glucogenic because they can produce glucose under conditions of low glucose. This process is also known as gluconeogenesis, or the production of "new glucose." Amino acids form glucose through degradation to pyruvate or an intermediate in the Krebs Cycle. The intermediates can then be converted to oxaloacetate, the main precursor for gluconeogenesis. (glucogenic amino acids: alanine, cysteine, glycine, serine, threonine, tryptophan, asparagine, aspartate, phenylalanine, tyrosine, isoleucine, methionine, threonine, valine, arginine, glutamate, glutamine, histidine, and proline).<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
In contrast, ketogenic amino acids can produce ketones when energy sources are low. Some of these amino acids are degraded directly to ketone bodies such as acetoacetate (leucine, lysine, phenylalanine, tryptophan, and tyrosine). The other ketogenic amino acids can be converted to acetyl CoA. Acetyl CoA has several different fates, one of which is the conversion to acetoacetate. Although not a preferential energy source, acetoacetate can be metabolized by the brain and muscle for energy when blood glucose is low and acetoacetate cannot be used in gluconeogenesis, since acetyl CoA cannot be converted directly to oxaloacetate.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The above is what happens when you consume adequate protein each day. So, what happens if you consume too many calories and/or too much protein? Basically, when energy sources are high, both <b>glucogenic and ketogenic amino acids are converted to fatty acids</b> through the intermediate acetyl CoA. Other amino acids that are degraded to intermediates in the Krebs Cycle are siphoned off into the production of urea, a nitrogenous carboxyl compound that is filtered through the kidneys and secreted in the urine.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Put another way, you now have fatty acids that can store as body fat.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
It is for this reason one should not consider a low-carb diet as an <i>all-you-can-eat buffet</i>, just hold the carbs. Whether you're new to carbohydrate restriction, or a long-term veteren, you need to know how much protein you need at minimum, and also understand where the maximum is for weight loss and weight maintenance.<br />
<br />
How does one know how much is enough and how much is too much?<br />
<br />
It depends largely on weight. In fact, it is really all about how much one weighs. Protein requirements are based on body weight because body weight takes into account mass, lean body tissue and structural maintenance. The more you weigh, the more protein you need; the less you weigh, the less you need. <br />
<br />
The absolute minimum, to meet EAA requirements is considered 0.8g/kg body weight. On a low-carb or carb-controlled diet, one does require more to fuel gluconeogenesis and most agree that protein requirement ranges, from 1.0g/kg to 1.5g/kg. A good middle maximum is 1.2g/kg if someone is active. For this reason, I usually provide individuals with a minimum target for protein each day based on the EAA minimum (0.8g/kg) from animal foods, then provide a range of maximum from all sources, including the vegetables they'll consume, that ranges 1.0g/kg and 1.2g/kg. In the years I've helped people understand how much protein is enough, I've only encountered a couple who were very active and could consume 1.5g/kg.<br />
<br />
The chart below provides protein requirement and upper protein range for those restricting carbohydrate in their diet.<br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="page-break-before: always; width: 961px;"> <colgroup><col width="242"></col> <col width="284"></col> <col width="410"></col> </colgroup><tbody>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>WEIGHT</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>PROTEIN</b></div>
<div align="CENTER">
<b>EAA MIN</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>PROTEIN</b></div>
<div align="CENTER">
<b>GNG RANGE</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>350-plus</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>125g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>160-190g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>340</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>123g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>154-185g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>330</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>120g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>150-180g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>320</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>116g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>145-175g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>310</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>113g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>140-170g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>300</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>109g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>136-165g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>290</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>105g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>131-160g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>280</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>102g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>127-155g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>270</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>98g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>122-150g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>260</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>95g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>118-145g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>250</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>91g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>114-140g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>240</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>87g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>110-135g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>230</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>84g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>105-130g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>220</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>80g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>100-125g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>210</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>76g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>95-120g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>200</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>73g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>90-115g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>190</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>69g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>86-110g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>180</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>66g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>86-100g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>170</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>62g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>77-95g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>160</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>59g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>72-90g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>150</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>56g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>70-85g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>140</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>55g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>70-85g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>130</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>55g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>70-85g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
<tr valign="TOP"> <td width="242"><div align="CENTER">
<b>120-less</b></div>
</td> <td width="284"><div align="CENTER">
<b>55g</b></div>
</td> <td width="410"><div align="CENTER">
<b>70-80g</b></div>
</td> </tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-56402086359935080402012-08-25T11:42:00.003-05:002012-08-25T11:58:42.793-05:00Do Calories Count?<span lang="0" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">We often hear, and even I've said, do not count calories on a low-carb diet. The advice, on its face, is sound because when someone starts a low-carb diet, overweight or obese, counting only grams of carbohydrate, they reduce their calorie intake even when eating ad libidum; so having to count calories over-complicates a dietary approach that already lowers calorie intake anyway.<br /><br />But saying "don't count calories" does not mean that calories do not matter. I wrote about how it is a myth that calories don't count back in 2005 (<a href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2005/12/low-carb-myth-busting.html">here</a>).<br /><br />They do, they always have and always will - but they're not always perfectly matched to calories-in/calories-out (CICO) since nutrient-density of the food you eat also matters, along with the fact that the body compensates daily with homeostsis and how much we move, so it's not always burning exactly the same calories each day. But over a long-term average, calculated active metabolic rate (AMR) is a fairly accurate target for calories needed on average each day to maintain weight when you're meeting requirements for essential nutrients.<br /><br />So, should you count calories?<br /><br />Based on years of experience, my suggestion remains - when you start a low-carb diet, do not count calories.<br /><br />If you stall, look at calories - you may be eating too many, or (<i>gasp</i>) not enough.<br /><br />If you gain, look at calories - I can promise you that if you're keeping your carbohydrate restricted, gaining almost always means you're eating surplus calories from fat and protein in excess of your active metabolic rate (AMR); small fluctuations are normal, but gain on gain on gain while restricting carbohydrate is excess calories.<br /><br />It is a MYTH that you cannot gain weight if you just keep your carbohydrate restricted, the fact is calories do matter. In addition,hormones, glycogen stores, and metabolic rate matter too, but if you're gaining weight while keeping carbohydrate restricted, <b>you're not gaining in a calorie deficit, you're gaining in a calorie surplus.</b></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-41992102534179419172012-08-14T09:05:00.005-05:002012-08-14T10:58:00.399-05:00Where Are We Today?When I started this blog back in 2005, in my second post, <a href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2005/05/hunter-gatherers.html">Hunter-Gatherers</a>, I looked at a review by Loren Cordain <i>et al</i>, about the maronutrient estimations in worldwide hunter-gather diets.<br /><br />I noted,<br /><i><br />Their findings included</i><br /><ul><li><i>Most (73%) of the worldwide hunter-gatherer societies derived >50% (56–65% of energy) of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 14% of these societies derived >50% (56–65% of energy) of their subsistence from gathered plant foods.<br /><br /></i></li><li><i>This high reliance on animal-based foods coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate content of wild plant foods produces universally characteristic macronutrient consumption ratios in which protein is elevated (19–35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrates (22–40% of energy).</i><br /></li></ul><br /><i>So, most of the hunter-gathers are eating 56-65% of their energy from animal foods, providing</i> <i>19-35% of their calories as protein and just 22-40% of their calories from carbohydrate.<br /><br />In a "real world" 2000-calorie a day diet, what does such a macronutrient mix look like?<br /><br />19-35% of calories from protein = 380 to 700 calories or 95g to 175g of protein, with most coming from animal foods<br /><br />22-40% of calories from carbohydrate = 440 to 800 calories or 110g to 200g of carbohydrate<br /><br />The remaining calories, from fat = 500 to 1180 calories, or 25-59% or 55g to 131g of fat</i><br /><br />And continued by stating that <i>"[t]hese ratios are very much in line with controlled-carbohydrate nutrition ratios, which generally holds that carbohydrate is limited to 40% or less for daily calorie intake. The mix of fat and protein calories in a controlled-carb approach is highly individualized and the goal is to include quality protein in adequate amounts and only include quality fats and oils."</i><br /><br />Six years later, I still hold the opinion that today, controlled-carb nutrition can model the diet of our ancestors; typically called Paleo and/or Primal eating. In fact, I'd say it would be difficult to consume a diet high in carbohydrate (greater than 40% of calories from carbohydrate) without specifically focusing on eating a high level of carbohydrate each day.<br /><br />Has this become clearer in the years since I started this blog?<br /><br />Not really.<br /><br />In truth, time has created a variety of differing opinions that leave many confused; worse is that some seek to create divisions where none need be.<br /><br />Recently Jimmy Moore posted <a href="http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/ahs12-a-dichotomy-of-differing-interpretations-of-what-paleo-is/15023">AHS12: A Dichotomy Of Differing Interpretations Of What Paleo Is</a>. In it, he writes, <i>"However, when it comes to starchy carbohydrate sources of nutrition such as white potatoes, sweet potatoes or white rice (the toxin-free “safe starches” identified as such by Paul Jaminet), there’s a definite divide between those who avoid them because they raise blood sugar and insulin levels as well as lipid numbers to unhealthy levels (...) and those who believe these starches provide the adequate glucose your body needs to perform and function as it was intended to. That’s quite a division within the Paleo community that doesn’t have an easy answer to bridge the chasm."<br /><br /></i>Is this really a division within the Paleo community? Is this really a chasm that needs a bridge?<br /><br />Honestly, I don't think so.<br /><br />As I noted in my comments on his link to the blog on Facebook, <i><span jsid="text" class="commentBody">"Paleo is a guideline to the types of foods one can eat, not the amount one *should* eat of any particular macronutrient; low-carb is one dietary approach which fits in with a paleo diet. Both focus on quality protein, good fats and nutrient dense carbohydrate. What level of carbohydrate you consume is your business, Paleo is basically just the framework for what foods to choose from. I don't think paleo has to be low-carb to be effective. It really is dependent on the individual.</span>"</i><br /><br />One of the things I've learned over the last decade is that nothing is set in stone when it comes to macronutrients - the diets of healthy, normal weight individuals, around the globe vary greatly, what matters most is the micronutrient composition in the overall diet; it's habitually meeting or exceeding essential fatty acids (EFA), essential amino acids (EAA), essential vitamins, minerals and trace elements. The Japanese do that by consuming copious amounts of fish and pork, but their overall diet is lower in fat than those in France, who also do that with a wide variety of meat, full-fat dairy and a boatload of non-starchy vegetables and fruits. Both diets also have starchier foods too, yet these populations are not, nor have they ever been, suffering alarming rates of obesity.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />If you look at diet quality, both Japan and France are eating serious quality foods, real foods, compared to the US and other nations with exploding obesity rates.<br /><br />Quality matters; it is the heart-and-soul of Paleo, it is the heart-and-soul of Primal. The focus of ancestral eating (Paleo and Primal) is real food, shunning the processed and choosing quality. It defines no specific level of macronutrients by gram or percentage, but does point to nutrient density and meeting essential nutrient requirements. While one can follow a low-carb diet and eat Paleo-Primal style, that does not mean Paleo-Primal is low-carb <i>per se</i>; although, as noted i the paper by Cordain et al, Paleo-Primal diets are lower in carbohydrate than the Standard American Diet (SAD).<br /><br />I do not think we have this deep divide, I think what we're seeing is a wide variety of approaches to reach the same goal - eating healthfully for the long-term. For some that includes soaked and fermented grains (Weston A. Price Foundation), for others eliminating grains is important, but dairy and legumes, along with other foods that are newer in our history may be included (Primal), and still there are those who hold that those foods, eaten by others in the spectrum of eating "real food", are simply unacceptable, just say no (Paleo). At the end of the day, the common theme amongst all - eat real food!<br /><br />As one commenter noted on Jimmy's blog, <i>"We do not currently understand everything about the variation in individual response to carbohydrates, such as sex differences, or dependence on history of metabolic dysfunction. We also do not completely understand how an individual’s dietary needs may change as a function of time depending on external<br />conditions. In addition, how much carbohydrate a person will do best on will depend on their goals (performance, longevity, reproductive health), but once again we do not understand the complete picture!"</i><br /><br />I concur! Many things factor into weight loss and long-term health, eating real food is the one thing that continues to be the most important aspect of a healthy diet.<br /><br />Chris Kresser nailed it last year, in his post <a href="http://chriskresser.com/beyond-paleo-moving-from-a-paleo-diet-to-a-paleo-template">Beyond Paleo: Moving from a Paleo Diet to a Paleo Template</a>. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-33062136228309985732012-08-07T09:52:00.001-05:002012-08-07T09:54:03.618-05:00Review TimeBack in 2007, I did a series on the "rules" of Atkins. Here I present the links to that series and will follow-up in the coming weeks with lessons learned and a view of the long-term.<br /><ul><li><a title="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/07/handing-you-keys-to-success.html" href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/07/handing-you-keys-to-success.html">Handing you the Keys to Success</a> </li><li><a title="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/07/establishing-good-eating-habits-rule.html" href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/07/establishing-good-eating-habits-rule.html">Establishing Good Eating Habits: Rule One</a> </li><li><a title="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/07/rule-two-back-to-basics.html" href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/07/rule-two-back-to-basics.html">Rule Two: Back to Basics</a> </li><li><a title="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/07/vegetables-fruits-are-heart-of.html" href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/07/vegetables-fruits-are-heart-of.html">Rule Three: Vegetables & Fruits are Heart of Controlled-Carb</a> </li><li><a title="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/07/rule-four-starches-sweets-no-longer.html" href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/07/rule-four-starches-sweets-no-longer.html">Rule Four: Starches, Sweets: No Longer Staples</a> </li><li><a title="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/07/rule-five-break-free-from.html" href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/07/rule-five-break-free-from.html">Rule Five: Break Free from Contradictions</a> </li><li><a title="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/08/rule-six-empower-yourself.html" href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/08/rule-six-empower-yourself.html">Rule Six: Empower Yourself</a> </li><li><a title="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/08/rule-seven-use-your-smarts.html" href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/08/rule-seven-use-your-smarts.html">Rule Seven: Use Your Smarts!</a> </li><li><a title="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/08/rule-eight-keep-it-real.html" href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/08/rule-eight-keep-it-real.html">Rule Eight: Keep it Real</a> </li><li><a title="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/08/rules-to-drink-it-up.html" href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/08/rules-to-drink-it-up.html">Rules to Drink it Up!</a> </li><li><a title="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/08/rules-to-maintain-balance.html" href="http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/08/rules-to-maintain-balance.html">Rules to Maintain a Balance</a> </li></ul>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-69287338692672526572012-07-28T09:02:00.005-05:002012-07-29T07:46:12.618-05:00BabaganoushApologies for no picture!<br /><br />Babaganoush - 8 servings<br /><br />2 large eggplants (about a pound)<br />1 medium red tomato<br />1 thick slice red onion (about 1")<br />1 Tbs ground nutmeg<br />2 tsp crushed garlic<br />Juice from 1/2 medium lemon<br />2 Tbs Tahini<br />3 Tbs pine nuts (pignoli)<br />4 Tbs EVOO<br /><br />Preheat oven to 400 and place eggplants on baking sheet. Bake at 400 for 35-40 minutes.<br /><br />Remove from oven and allow to cool. Peel the skin and discard, cut up eggplant and place in large bowl.<br /><br />In a small bowl, set aside 2 Tbs of olive oil, add the remaining olive oil to the eggplant.<br /><br />Add all remaining ingredients (except the pine nuts) and blend with an immersion blender until smooth.<br /><br />To serve (makes 8 servings), top on lettuce or a thick slice of tomato, top with olive oil and pine nuts.<br /><br />Per Serving (8) including topped with EVOO and pine nuts: 16g fat, 12g carbohydrate, 3g protein<br />NOTE: Carbohydrate is net; total less fiberUnknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-9298828317152578522008-12-26T21:57:00.000-06:002011-06-03T21:57:56.044-05:00Sugared BeveragesCommentary from Governor David Patterson, New York on CNN.com:<br /><br />Today, we find ourselves in the midst of a new public health epidemic: childhood obesity.<br /><br />What smoking was to my parents’ generation, obesity is to my children’s generation. Nearly one out of every four New Yorkers under the age of 18 is obese. In many high-poverty areas, the rate is closer to one out of three.<br /><br />That is why, in the state budget I presented last Tuesday, I proposed a tax on sugared beverages like soda. Research has demonstrated that soft-drink consumption is one of the main drivers of childhood obesity.<br /><br />These days I’m no longer surprised when something like an “obesity tax” is foisted upon the masses without so much as a whimper – afterall it is your fault if you’re fat, right? You should pay more, right?<br /><br />Several commentators in the media applauded the move by Governor Patterson – Nicolas Kristof opined the hope that other states will follow suit because “if other states follow, [it] could help make us healthier.”<br /><br />He even ties it up neatly with a bow, repeating Patterson’s parallel to smoking and cigarettes, “These days, sugary drinks are to American health roughly what tobacco was a generation ago. A tax would shift some consumers, especially kids, to diet drinks or water.”<br /><br />No one likes taxes, but by golly, we must do this for the children! We must save ourselves from ourselves with this tax – save the children, save the world, reduce consumption of sugared beverages and all will be well.<br /><br />What’s maddening isn’t so much the propsed tax on sugared beverages, it is what government does if they can get away with it….what’s maddening is that no one seems to notice that we are already paying taxes that enable the flood of cheap soda, fruit drinks and sugared beverages into our markets. It’s paid by our taxes in the Farm Bill, with corn being king amongst the crops subsidized by our tax dollars.<br /><br />This new tax represents a double taxation to New Yorkers – taxed first from their income to subsidize corn in the Farm Bill; and now to add insult to injury, when they dare to consume products made from the corn products their tax dollars helped make cheap at the consumer level – namely high-fructose corn syrup….beverages produced that are artificially low in price at the consumer level and often cheaper than buying a bottle of water!<br /><br />If the government truly wants to tackle the obesity epidemic, perhaps it’s time to revisit the Farm Bill and how it is directly creating a market flooded with cheap corn calories at the consumer level for things like high-fructose corn syrup which is used in thousands of food products in our markets!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-83847409277359668062008-12-09T21:56:00.000-06:002011-06-03T21:57:10.491-05:00Banning Bottled WaterThey say the road to hell is paved by good intentions.<br /><br />The Toronto Star recently noted the political battlelines drawn around the debate to ban bottled water in Toronto, “Environmentalists claim bottled water commercializes a public resource, undermines faith in Canadian water systems, and sends plastic bottles to the landfills. The bottled water industry counters that environmental groups rig recycling rate numbers and vilify a product that helps combat obesity.”<br /><br />Last week the vote was cast and the Toronto city council voted to immediately ban the sale and/or distribution of bottled water in City Hall and the city’s civic centres where contracts permit, and ban the sale and/or distribution of bottled water in other city-owned facilities such as arenas and theatres by the end of 2011.<br /><br />While it’s now illegal to not only sell bottled water, but also illegal to distribute bottled water in city-owned facilities in Toronto, it’s still perfectly legal and acceptable to sell and distribute sweetened waters (translation – soda and fruit drinks).<br /><br />Afterall, isn’t that really what soda and fruit drinks are – simply sweetened water?<br /><br />Let me see if I understand this.<br /><br />Bottled water = bad-illegal<br /><br />Bottled soda & fruit drinks = good-legal<br /><br />This vote after Statistics Canada released data that found Canadians consumed more than 95 litres of soft drinks in 2007!<br /><br />How much more soda and fruit drinks do you think folks will drink now that bottled water is banned?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-49018488573721547092008-10-17T21:55:00.000-05:002011-06-03T21:56:23.403-05:00So We Begin the Food Stamp ChallengeWhen I posted about this year’s Food Stamp Challenge yesterday, underway in various locations in the US, I assumed it was going to be much harder this year to stay within the allotted budget despite an almost double amount of money last year. My regular readers may recall, last year I reviewed the sales circulars online to get the best bargains, planned the week of meals before I went shopping, had to include a fairly high level of canned goods (especially beans) and barely made the budget. We did well nutritionally – with the exception of Vitamin D, we met all nutrient requirement RDA’s and managed to keep carbohydrate intake at an average 97g per day for the week; 73g net if you deduct fiber. But, as I noted, it wasn’t easy to do on a budget of just $3.00 per person per day, or $63 for the week for my family.<br /> <br />This year, with a nearly double budget – $123.27 for the week ($5.87 per person per day) – I changed the rules I’d follow in response to comments last year. Unlike last year, this year I’d shop in only one store, no pre-planning; instead I’d grab a sales circular on my way into the closest grocery store to my home and do my shopping for the week without any menus planned ahead of time.<br /> <br />Now I don’t shop for many routine items at the grocery store – most meats for us are usually ordered from a local farm, I buy a lot of produce at the local Farmer’s Market, and some things, like cheese, I usually buy at a specialty shop in town. But I do shop enough in the grocery stores to note that prices have definitely risen over the last year, with some items nearly double what I remember from last year.<br /> <br />When I did our grocery shopping yesterday, at HyVee (closest to my house) I was surprised that I wasn’t just within budget, but that I didn’t spend the entire budget. And, I included a number of items that were “maybe” items, held back until I could see the running total for the “must have” foods; “maybe” things like crumbled blue cheese, roasted red pepper hummus, name-brand coffee, a small container of heavy cream, a fancy brand of fajita wraps and a small pumpkin my son asked for that we aren’t going to actually eat.<br /> <br />That isn’t to say I didn’t make any compromises – I did buy canned green beans over the fresh, they were much less expensive in the can; I chose frozen whole strawberries over the fresh for the same reason; and frozen broccoli won over the fresh too. My cuts of meat, poultry and fish were all selected by price rather than higher priced selections. For the most part, organic foods were out….one compromise I would not make was the organic, grass-fed, VAT pasturized, non-homogenized milk for my son; that was one thing that would be included no matter how much it cost. Luck had it though that it was on sale this week!<br /> <br />I also decided once I saw the sale circular for the week, that I’d see if I could do a week with low-carb – basically keep carbohydrate (for my husband and I only) at or below 60g a day on average and not have to include much in the way of beans or starchy foods, although I did buy two bread items (wraps and pita) when I saw they were possible within the budget. My goal again this year is that in the week we are able to eat well and meet our nutrient requirements. I think I did fairly well too!<br />When all was totaled, I spent $115.55 before tax, $120.91 with tax.<br /> <br />What did I get for my money? <br /> <br /> *Items with a star were “maybe” items included when I saw the total was still within budget, listed in order placed into the final order. <br /><br />1-pound butter<br />3-quarts half & half<br />2 dozen large eggs<br />1/2 gallon organic whole milk<br />1 8-ounce brick store-brand mozzarella<br />1 8-ounce brick store-brand cheddar<br />1 container sour cream<br />1 container cottage cheese<br />1 package cream cheese<br />10 8-ounce containers assorted store-brand yogurt (including plain)<br /> <br />1-pound deli ham (it was a steal at $1.99 a pound!)<br /> <br />1-pound bag frozen broccoli<br />1-pound bag frozen spinach<br />1-pound bag frozen whole strawberries<br /> <br />Box of tea bags<br />1 can bean sprouts<br />2 cans green beans<br />Small Hellmann’s mayonnaise<br />2 Bottles store-brand salad dressing<br />1 small bottle soy sauce<br />2 cans mandarin oranges<br />1 bag dried split peas<br />1 packet taco seasoning<br />1 can tomato paste<br />1 can diced tomatoes<br />1 bag sauerkraut<br /><br />5 bananas bunch<br />2 pears<br />1 head cauliflower<br />2 cucumbers<br />2 bags of store-brand mixed salad<br />1 head iceberg lettuce<br />2 kiwi fruit<br />1 yellow pepper<br />2 red peppers<br />2 green peppers<br />Yellow and green squash<br />1 spaghetti squash<br />2.5-pounds carrots<br />1 package Wholly guacamole<br />4 lemons<br />5 onions<br />1/2 cantaloupe<br />5 apples<br />2 plums<br /> <br />1 package Johnsonville sausage patties<br />1 package Oscar Mayer bacon<br />1 whole chicken<br />1 package chicken leg/thigh quarters<br />1 package split chicken breasts<br />2 pounds ground beef<br />1 large pork roast<br />1 package coconut crusted fish filets (store made; raw; frozen)<br />1 package eye-of-round steak<br />Folgers coffee* (I had a smaller, less expensive container, but added this instead) <br /><br />1 package boneless skinless chicken breasts*<br />1/2 pint heavy cream*<br />1 small bottle olive oil*<br />1 small jar minced garlic*<br />Assorted bags, very small amounts, open/loose spices sold by the ounce*<br />1 container blue cheese crumbles*<br />3 small sample size cheese (butterkase, gouda, gruyere)*<br />1 container roasted red pepper hummus*<br />1 5-pack Toufayan tomato wraps*<br />1 package pita*<br />1 small pumpkin*<br /><br />You’ll notice that above I don’t have any tomatoes or tomato sauce. That’s because we have a garden and right now, an excess of tomatoes that have to be eaten or made into sauce, so I’ll be using those tomatoes in some dishes this week.<br /><br />As you can see, I wasn’t left with little choice – I didn’t have to buy boxes of macaroni & cheese or ramen noodles. In fact, with the higher budget this year, I was able to buy much more fresh produce and meat, along with some “goodies” to enhance the meals I’ll make, like blue cheese to top salads, assorted cheeses for snacks, and decent coffee for our morning brew.<br /><br />Last night we kicked off our week with a delicious chicken & beef fajitas, complete with tomato wraps, sour cream, guacamole and cheddar cheese that I shredded from the block of cheese. Since our son isn’t too keen on spicy food, I made him some plain chicken and onion sautéed in a little butter, and with that he had some broccoli and a blueberry yogurt, and then a plum for dessert.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-88717474890816953072008-10-16T21:54:00.000-05:002011-06-03T21:55:02.043-05:00Food Stamp Challenge 2008In May 2007, I decided to step up to a challenge getting a lot of press as the Congress was readying to pass a new farm bill – it was to feed my family with a budget those recieving food stamps must stay within each week.<br /><br />At that time, the average per day was just $3.00 per person each day, which translated to $21 per week per person, or $63 total for all three of us to eat for one week. I chronicled my shopping, meals and my thoughts afterward between May 25 and June 5, which are still available on my blog.<br /><br />Making the news this week is a new challenge as we near the holiday season and more individuals and families find themselves in need of assistance. Yesterday kicked-off the Grand Rapids for the Michigan Food Stamp Challenge where those participating try to live on $5.87 per day per person (the new, higher maximum level provided to recipients).<br /><br />From news reports, “300 state and local leaders who have pledged to live on the equivalent of food stamps for five days.”<br /><br />Apparently the governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, is participating in the challenge. As reported by mlive.com, “The governor says she took her son shopping Sunday at a Meijer grocery store. They could only spend $5.87 per day per person. She says she bought a lot of macaroni and cheese.”<br /><br />Like last year, I’m not surprised by the belief perpetuated in the media that one must eat poor quality, high carbohydrate, cheap foods to survive on a limited budget. Last year I showed that was untrue as I fed my family a high-quality, nutrient dense diet for the week on just $3.00 a day per person. This year recipients receive even more money and I have to wonder, given the current economic situation, is the increase enough or not?<br /><br />So this year, once again, I’m going to see what a food stamp budget, $5.87 per person per day, buys us since food prices have steadily increased in the last year.<br /><br />Can we eat as well as we did last year?<br /><br />Will I need to make compromises?<br /><br />Will we eat better?<br /><br />Last year a number of comments criticized that I shopped in three different stores, had access to the internet to review sales circulars and plan based on sales, and had time to plan our meals before I shopped. For this challenge, I will shop in the closest grocery store to our house, will pick-up the circular when I enter the store and do my best without pre-planning the week since it was pretty clear that time and ability to plan ahead are both issues for many.<br /><br />Like last year, I invite readers to step up to the challenge too and share your experience in the comments as we move forward for the week, starting tomorrow.<br /><br />Here’s our rules for the October 2008 Food Stamp Challenge:<br /><br />1. Maximum per person is $5.87 per person per day. For us, a family of three, this means I have to feed us with just $123.27 in the coming week. Your total budget does not include any sales tax since recipient purchases are not subject to sales tax.<br /><br />2. Salt and pepper are considered in your pantry, so you do not need to buy either. But any other spices, condiments or cooking fats/oils do need to be purchased or you need to deduct a portion of your cost when you did buy the item that is in your pantry since it’s difficult to have a stocked pantry when you’re on food stamps. For example, if you do have chopped garlic in your house, you don’t have to buy another jar for the week, but should – if you use some – deduct a part of the cost. If the jar cost $5.00 and you use one serving from a 10-serving jar, take 50-cents off your budget to account for the garlic you used.<br /><br />3. It’s best to plan ahead, so if you have mailed or newspaper ad circulars, review what’s on sale and make a list before you shop. This time around, I’ll personally not plan ahead like I did last year and I’ll shop in only one grocery store. You don’t have to unless you want to also.<br /><br />4. If you have a child in school and they receive or buy lunch, do not deduct this from your budget. Any foods you pack for lunch or snacks does have to be part of your budget however.<br /><br />5. The budget does not include paper products, cleaning supplies, over-the-counter medicines, prescription medication, or non-food items not covered by food stamps. If you do need to buy these while you’re shopping, just make them a separate order, paid for separately, so you can accurately add up what you’re spending on food only.<br /><br />6. We can shop for, prepare and cook whatever we want to eat, and can eat free food at business functions, meetings, work, or other places just like anyone else; in addition we can sample from tasting stations in grocery stores, and eat at parties we attend, hosted by friends or family. We cannot take home leftovers to stretch our budget though.<br /><br />7. We can also eat out – but do need to include any meals we pay for and include the tax and tip since food stamp recipients cannot pay for meals out with their debit card, but also do have the expectation that the food stamps are assistance, not their sole source of buying food…we’ll include any meals out in our total budget.<br /><br />Basically, the challenge includes preparing and eating what you are able to purchase throughout the coming week, and any meals eaten out, since it’s one thing to have to shop with a limited budget and another to live with it for a week.<br /><br />Who will join me this week?<br /><br />Again this year, those participating in the challenge are encouraged to email me photos of their groceries for the week, along with recipes and meal ideas and insights about your experiences during the week. I’ll highlight them here on my blog next week and open discussion about the various challenges we all faced, and the things we learned along the way! As always your comments are welcome as the challenge gets underway!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-43435533137273161242008-09-25T21:51:00.000-05:002011-06-03T21:52:59.862-05:00A Picture Worth 1000 Words<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gDLIw0fZOxQ/Temd-VmmjTI/AAAAAAAAAK0/_Ik9FLtvT6k/s1600/pepsicorn.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 400px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gDLIw0fZOxQ/Temd-VmmjTI/AAAAAAAAAK0/_Ik9FLtvT6k/s400/pepsicorn.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5614192104770538802" /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-20111542763249782132008-08-27T21:49:00.000-05:002011-06-03T21:49:57.852-05:00Public Comment Open at USDALast week, in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, an article revealed some <br />shocking school breakfast and lunch options: "Pop-Tarts and doughnuts <br />for breakfast for 2-year-olds. Rolls, chicken nuggets and French fries for <br />school lunches. Brownies given the same nutritional value as a slice of <br />whole-wheat bread."<br /><br />This struck a chord with me since I recently posted on my blog about <br />the dismal lunches served in the Columbia Public Schools in Missouri. <br />One particularly disturbing lunch option - Smucker’s PBJ Uncrustable, <br />Pepperidge Farms Goldfish Pretzels, Rice Krispie Treat, 1% cholocate <br />milk, baby carrots and a fruit - is offered daily to students throughout the <br />district!<br /><br />With 789-calories, the school's website highlights that the lunch contains <br />23g of protein (92-calories) and just 24% fat (189-calories; 21g); no <br />mention that this means the lunch also contains 508-calories from <br />carbohydrate (127g), or the equivalent of 32-teaspoons of sugar in a child's metabolism...not to mention if a parent packed such a lunch for their <br />child each day, they'd be branded as irresponsible and lending a hand <br />to the epidemic of childhood obesity!<br /><br />With school back in session across many states, it seems we have a <br />pattern that shows school lunches are not as healthful as we're led to <br />believe!<br /><br />Senatobia, Mississippi: Chicken Nuggets or BBQ Rib Sandwich, Mashed <br />Potatoes w/Gravy, Cheesy Broccoli, Hot Cinnamon Apples, Fruit Juice, <br />Yeast Roll, Gelatin. (assorted milk)<br /><br />Randolph, Massachusetts: Nachos with cheese, beef, onion, tomato and <br />sour cream and fruit. (assorted milk)<br /><br />Roff, Oklahoma: Corndog, tator tots, black-eyed peas, chocolate pudding <br />and milk.<br /><br />Whittier, Massachusetts: Choice of Domino's of french bread pizza, small <br />salad, pretzel, assorted fruit. (assorted milk)<br /><br />Folsom, New Jersey: Nachos with cheese or Smucker's PB&J, vegetable, <br />fruit and milk.<br /><br />Ada, Oklahoma: Frito chili pie with cheese, green beans, garden salad, <br />rosy applesauce, salad bar and milk. <br /><br />Benton, Arkansas: Pizza, corn, salad, half an orange, milk<br /><br />Nachos, pizza, chicken nuggets, corndogs, frito chili pie....what is frito <br />chili pie anyway? And why are we not disturbed by these school lunches <br />offered to our kids each day?<br /><br />Amazingly, each and every one of these lunches meet the minimum <br />standards for school lunches established by the USDA. <br /><br />Which begs the question - how do we go about improving the minimum <br />standards for school lunches?<br /><br />It turns out the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 is <br />up for review and revision in 2009, and you can provide comments about <br />ways to improve the school lunch program by either testifying at an <br />upcoming USDA Listening Session, or submit written comments online <br />or via mail.<br /><br />If you'd like to submit comments online, you may at the Public Comment and Submission page.<br /><br />If for some reason the above link fails to take you to the page for public <br />comment, the Docket ID is FNS-2008-0011 and the Docket Title is <br />Request for Public Comments for Use in Preparing for 2009 <br />Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs and WIC.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-9652770149249515062008-08-25T21:53:00.000-05:002011-06-03T21:53:56.724-05:00Investigate the Alternate HypothesisEver since the publication of Gary’s Taubes’ Good Calories, Bad Calories, folks within the low-carb community have suggested and discussed various study designs to investigate the alternate hypothesis, the “Carbohydrate Hypothesis”, explored in the book. The biggest issue isn’t so much designing a study, but funding a study large enough and controlled enough to reach valid conclusions.<br /> <br />With obesity considered one of the most pressing health issues of our time, wouldn’t it be great if we could find the resources necessary to investigate, in a really well done trial, that alternate hypothesis?<br /> <br />Enter Project 10100 - a call for ideas to change the world by helping as many people as possible.<br /> <br />Project 10100 is accepting submissions of ideas for projects until October 20, 2008. One hundred ideas will be selected for public review and voting to narrow the field to twenty semi-finalists. An advisory board will then select five projects to fund from a commitment by Google of $10-million dollars.<br /> <br />One category is “Health” and the critera provided to help those submitting ideas includes:<br /> <br />Criteria:<br /><br />Reach: How many people would this idea affect? <br />Depth: How deeply are people impacted? How urgent is the need? <br />Attainability: Can this idea be implemented within a year or two? <br />Efficiency: How simple and cost-effective is your idea? <br />Longevity: How long will the idea’s impact last? <br />Project 10100 may be a way to fund a study to investigate the Carbohydrate Hypothesis!<br /> <br />If you’d like to submit your ideas, you can go to the Project 10100 website, or directly to the submission page.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-46131158563720439752008-08-15T21:50:00.000-05:002011-06-03T21:51:10.035-05:00Gary Taubes - Columbia, MO - November 2008Gary Taubes, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories and three time winner of the National Association of Science Writers’ Science in Society award, is scheduled to present his lecture, The Quality of Calories: Big Fat Lies: The Truth About Diet, Exercise and Obesity, on November 13, 2008 in Columbia, Missouri.<br /><br />The event is sponsored by the Boone County Medical Society and the Department of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Missouri. It is free and open to the public. Registration is strongly recommended as seating is limited.<br /><br />The presenation will take place at the Monsanto Auditorium (University of Missouri) at 2:30pm and will be followed by a reception in the McQuinn Atrium. More details are on the flyer below. To register online, click here.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-47955501063718328322008-08-08T21:47:00.000-05:002011-06-03T21:58:44.111-05:00Feeding Infants FructoseDiscussion: Consuming fructose during suckling may result in lifelong changes in body weight, insulin secretion, and fatty acid transport involving CD36 in muscle and ultimately promote insulin resistance.<br /><br />That was the conclusion reached by researchers who published Dietary Fructose During the Suckling Period Increases Body Weight and Fatty Acid Uptake Into Skeletal Muscle in Adult Rats, in the journal Obesity.<br /><br />While the study was on rats, it’s interesting to look at the ingredients in baby formula sold in the United States (all of the below are the first few ingredients listed from peapod.com and do not include the brand name):<br /><br />INGREDIENTS: Nonfat Milk, Whey Protein Concentrate, Corn Syrup Solids…<br /> <br />INGREDIENTS: Corn Syrup Solids, Partially Hydrolyzed Nonfat Milk and Whey Protein Concentrate Solids, Vegetable Oil…<br /> <br />INGREDIENTS: Corn Syrup Solids, Vegetable Oil (Palm Olein, Soy, Coconut, and High Oleic Sunflower Oils), Casein Hydrolysate …<br /> <br />INGREDIENTS: Corn Syrup Solids (43.2%), Soy Protein Isolate (11.5%), High-Oleic Safflower Oil (10.3%), Sugar (Sucrose) (8.4%), Soy Oil (7.7%), Coconut Oil (7.7%)….<br />Is there a connection with rising prevalence of childhood obesity and feeding infants corn syrup solids? Things that make you go ‘hmmmm’Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-58715892065182430552008-08-01T21:45:00.000-05:002011-06-03T21:47:04.668-05:00My New Blog HomeWell, I decided to migrate my blog, Weight of the Evidence, to WordPress. This was due to Blogger locking my blog under the mistaken belief it was a “spam blog”. I have some minor work to do on the posts that migrated to get them properly tagged – but should have that complete by the end of next week.<br /><br />For anyone who has my old blog address in their links (weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com) – please change the link to www.WeightoftheEvidence.com – Thank you!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-55376207043124681122008-07-25T09:41:00.005-05:002008-07-25T09:46:59.765-05:00Chew on this...The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews recently withdrew a document within its collection - <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18646093?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum"><span style="color:#3333ff;">Advice on low-fat diets for obesity</span></a>.<br /><br />As we learn on <a href="http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD003640/frame.html"><span style="color:#3333ff;">The Cochrane Collection website</span></a>, the editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.<br /><br />The reason cited for the withdrawal?<br /><br /><em>This review is withdrawn because it is very much out of date, as authors stated. None of the authors has any plans to update it.</em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-73509654844622585112008-07-19T08:17:00.002-05:002008-07-19T08:22:46.330-05:00Happy Trails to you....<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4IGtDPG4UfI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4IGtDPG4UfI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IGtDPG4UfI">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IGtDPG4UfI</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-3976753713963207692008-07-17T16:50:00.006-05:002008-07-18T18:20:43.285-05:00Two Year Dietary Trial Results: Low-Carb Better than Low-FatThe study just published in the New England Journal of Medicine, <a href="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/3/229?query=TOC"><strong>Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet</strong></a> (free full-text), is quite a read, with lots of data and lots of findings to explore and look at!<br /><br />First things first - the objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of weight loss diets over a two year period.<br /><br />The dietary approaches included in the study:<br /><ul><li>a low-carb diet, loosely based upon the Atkins diet, no calorie restriction </li><li>a Mediterranean diet, calorie restricted, based on the recommendations of Dr. Willett & Dr. Skerrett (Eat, Drink & Be Healthy)</li><li>a low-fat diet, calorie restricted, based on the American Heart Association guidelines </li></ul><p>In addition to weighing participants each month and measuring waist circumference, the researchers measured at reporting invervals (6-months, 12-months and 24-months) total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, triglycerides, fasting blood glucose, fasting insulin, HbA1C, blood pressure, HOMA-IR, C-reactive protein, leptin, adiponectin, bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase and urinary ketones.<br /><br />Enrolled in the study were 322 volunteers; they were provided their largest meal each day (lunch) at work, and given support and guideance about their diet throughout the study period. Of the 322 who started the trial, 95.4% completed one year, and 84.6% (272 participants) completed the 24-months - making this perhaps, the best adherence level in a dietary trial lasting two years!<br /><br />So what happened? Let's look at the various outcome measures to see.<br /><br /><strong>Weight Loss</strong><br /><br />The mean weight changes among the 272 participants who completed 24 months of intervention were:<br /><br />–3.3 ±4.1 kg in the low-fat group (7.3-pounds)<br />–4.6 ±6.0 kg in the Mediterranean-diet group (10.1-pounds)<br /><strong>–5.5 ±7.0 kg in the low-carbohydrate group (12.1-pounds)<br /></strong>(p=0.03)<br /><br />Overall, in the intent to treat data (which includes even those subjects that did not complete the study) the weight loss was reported as:<br /><br />–2.9 ±4.2 kg for the low-fat group (6.4-pounds)<br />–4.4 ±6.0 kg for the Mediterranean-diet group (9.7-pounds)<br /><strong>–4.7 ±6.5 kg for the low-carbohydrate group (10.3-pounds)<br /></strong><br />The reason I note the two findings is that in the media reports, the trend appears they're reporting the intent-to-treat numbers, which are lower because they include the 50 subjects that dropped out. Those who actually completed the study are the data I prefer to look at for weight loss since it accurately presents how effective the dietary approaches are when continued for two years!<br /><br /><strong>Waist Circumference</strong><br /><br />-2.8 ±4.3 cm in the low-fat group<br />-3.5 ±5.1 cm in the Mediterranean-diet group<br /><strong>-3.8 ±5.2 cm in the low-carbohydrate group</strong><br /><br /><strong>Lipid Profiles</strong><br /><br />The graph itself speaks volumes: </p><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 672px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 451px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="345" alt="" src="http://content.nejm.org/content/vol359/issue3/images/large/04f3.jpeg" border="0" /><br /><p><strong>High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein, High-Molecular-Weight Adiponectin, and Leptin</strong><br /><br /><em>The level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein decreased significantly only in the Mediterranean-diet group (21%) and the low-carbohydrate group (29%), during both the weight-loss and the maintenance phases, with no significant differences among the groups in the amount of decrease.<br /><br />During both the weight-loss and the maintenance phases, the level of high-molecular-weight adiponectin increased significantly in all diet groups, with no significant differences among the groups in the amount of increase.<br /></em><br /><em>Circulating leptin, which reflects body-fat mass, decreased significantly in all diet groups, with no significant differences among the groups in the amount of decrease; the decrease in leptin paralleled the decrease in body weight during the two phases.<br /></em><br /><strong>Fasting Plasma Glucose, HOMA-IR, and Glycated Hemoglobin</strong><br /><br /><em>Among the 36 participants with diabetes, only those in the Mediterranean-diet group had a decrease in fasting plasma glucose levels (32.8 mg per deciliter); this change was significantly different from the increase in plasma glucose levels among participants with diabetes in the low-fat group.<br /></em><br />This is critically important to note - the <strong>low-fat group</strong> experienced a <strong>rise</strong> in fasting blood glucose over the course of the two years; this despite a greater calorie deficit than the other two diets, and a greater increase in physical activity! Yet, this type of diet is exactly how the ADA recommends people at risk for or diagnosed with diabetes eat, while expecting ever increasing doses of medication to cover their progressive decline in glycemic control.<br /><br />It is also noteworthy that, <em>"there was no significant change in plasma glucose level among the participants without diabetes."</em> Basically those who did not have diabetes did not experience any change in their values over the period of the study.<br /><br />What the researchers <em>did not</em> note in their written text of the results was this - the low-carb dieters had similar declines in their fasting blood glucose levels through month 12, followed by a progressive decline through month 24. </p><p>If we look at the data provided, we can see something important changed - the quality of the carbohydrate they consumed seems to have declined. If you look at the table providing details of the dietary intakes, one major change in the low-carb group between moth 12 and month 24 pops out - as the study progressed, the consumed less and less fiber on average, compared with their baseline intake. Now early on, that's to be expected. Later, as carbohydrate is increased - if quality whole foods are the choice - fiber typically increases!<br /><br />In contrast, insulin levels decreased significantly in participants with diabetes and in those without diabetes in all diet groups, with no significant differences among groups in the amount of decrease.<br /><br /><em>Among the participants with diabetes, the decrease in HOMA-IR at 24 months was significantly greater in those assigned to the Mediterranean diet than in those assigned to the low-fat diet.</em><br /><br />Again, in the text, the researchers do not note if there were changes in HOMA-IR in the low-carb group. There was - over the 24-month period, the HOMA-IR in those with diabetes, following the low-carb diet, declined by 1.0; in those with diabetes following the low-fat diet the decline was 0.3; and in those with diabetes following the Mediterranean diet the decline was 2.3.<br /><br />The last item reported in the section was the HbA1C levels. Among the participants with diabetes, the proportion of glycated hemoglobin at 24 months decreased by:<br /><br />0.4 ±1.3% in the low-fat group<br />0.5 ±1.1% in the Mediterranean-diet group<br /><strong>0.9 ±0.8% in the low-carbohydrate group</strong><br /><br />The changes were significant <em>only in the low-carbohydrate group</em>. </p><p>The lower HbA1C is perhaps one of the most important outcomes of this study. The diabetics, in the low-carb group, were able to lower their levels by 0.9 over the 24 months and this was significantly greater than those in the two other diets. Unfortunately the researchers did not include the baseline HbA1C for participants, so we do not know what the reduction really means. </p><p><strong>Liver-Function</strong> </p><p><em>Tests Changes in bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, and alanine aminotransferase levels were similar among the diet groups </em></p><p><em>Alanine aminotransferase levels were significantly reduced from baseline to 24 months in the Mediterranean-diet and the low-carbohydrate groups.</em> </p><p><strong>The Good, Bad, and Why oh Why?</strong> </p><p>Overall, most reporting on the study today, feel the research team did a good job designing the study and executing it, many applauding the high rate of retention in the study for two years. I too am impressed that the participants remained committed to the trial, their assigned diets, and the longer-term outcome measures! </p><p>I personally would have liked more information than was published. </p><p>Key information regarding the baseline diet was not included in the data - not published items include how many calories were consumed, on average, at baseline; nor do we know how much protein, carbohydrate, fat or fiber was in the baseline dietary habits of those participating. While obviously not critical, it is 'nice to know' data. </p><p>I also would have liked to see the researchers have the courage to actually follow the Atkins dietary approach, and not make changes based on a number of assumptions. </p><p>We do not, for example, know what the outcome would be if the participants on the low-carb dietary arm had not been told to specifically choose vegetable based fats over animal fats. Atkins does not specifically state you must eat butter, but the diet allows butter. In addition, encouraging the consumption of plant-based proteins over animal proteins is another tweak that may not have had any effect, or may have had a positive or negative one. We simply do not know because the researchers encouraged plant-based protein consumption rather than leave the dietary recommendations as they are - meats, eggs, poultry, fish, tofu and such are allowed, ad libitum. <span style="color:#cc0000;">[please see update below!]</span></p><p>The reporting in the media, as my earlier post highlights, has been quite an eye-opener. I'm not sure if those quoted realize it or not, but their reaction to the study is quite telling, especially those with the strongest vested-interests in maintaining the status quo. </p><p>In the Wall Street Journal, <em>Robert Eckle, the past president of the American Heart Association and a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, said he was not ready to recommend an Atkins-type low-carb diet based on the results. People on a low-carb diet increased their consumption of saturated fat, he said, which could not be good for them in the long run.</em> </p><p>Did he even bother to read the findings? </p><p>Or maybe he was just disappointed the AHA's recommended diet - the diet recommendations the low-fat group were instructed to follow - did so poorly compared to the other two?</p><p>Did he know that the study author, Dr. Meir Stampfer of Harvard Medical School, in the same article, said <em><strong>"It is time to reconsider the low-fat diet as the first choice for weight loss and for cardiovascular health, it is not the best." </strong></em></p><p>I think tomorrow, we'll take a fun ride through many of the quotes and opinions offered on this study! </p><p>In the meantime, what are your thoughts? Feel free to leave comments!</p><p><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">UPDATE 7/18/08</span></strong></p><p>I received an email today from a friend who asked one of the researchers about the reference to plant-based (vegetable) fats and proteins. Dr. Shai assured him that the low carbohydrate group was not advised to consume a vegetarian low-carb diet, nor were they specifically restricted from eggs, cheese, red meat, poultry or fish. Due to dietary restriction (religious) the group would not, for instance have a cheeseburger or butter on top of their steak. Olive oil featured prominently. The participants did read the Atkins diet book. And the examples provided of the types of meals was "For example, a plate could include : fish or fried/not bread coated chicken/or red meet, broccoli and mushrooms coated with eggs, roasted eggplants, vegetable salad (peppers, cucumber, green leaves, notlettuce) with olive oil dressing.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com15