Cottage cheese is superb being rich in proteins and very low on carbs and fat making Kcal per 100gr ratio excellent. It's a good source to get both kasein and whey proteins. I've would eat a lot of cottage cheese if it wasn't becouse I already use supplements like whey and casein powder mixed with milk.
I've been losing 2/3rds pound or 300g per day
- Thread starter Squilliam
- Start date
Cottage cheese is superb being rich in proteins and very low on carbs and fat making Kcal per 100gr ratio excellent. It's a good source to get both kasein and whey proteins. I've would eat a lot of cottage cheese if it wasn't becouse I already use supplements like whey and casein powder mixed with milk.
I just keep to dark bread, fullcorn etc and rarely eat white bread. Potatoes though is good and rice to. Like you I dislike sugar and greatly avoid it aswell as avoiding excessive salt amounts and I dont even put butter on my bread. For me bread just tastes better without butter.
And it's not like I need a diet since I do heavy weightlifting and my calorie needs are about 3000-4000Kcal or more depeding if it is a rest day or training day (and how hard). I just try to fullfill my bodies requirements by eating healthy food and drinking lots of water.
True story. Mashed potatoes is excellent for an uppset stomic and I sure know with all the training supplements I take and have taken (some are nasty for the digestive system).
Um, okay. Why? It's not like they have an agenda. They're purely a non-profit organization to support the fight against cardiovascular disease.
Of the studies you listed, this is the only one I could see with a decent sample size. The low-carb group had more adverse effects. They also had significantly higher high-density cholesterol levels (increased 23% during the diet period).
So I'd say your own study example proves you wrong.
No, my argument is that any diet which triggers very rapid weight loss is unlikely to be sustainable, which means the person is likely to bounce back. And in the case of a low-carb diet, much of the weight loss is due to water loss, which is not only bad for your health, but also means that it is absolutely meaningless, and will be gained back immediately upon exiting the diet.
WhiningKhan
Regular
I'm sure they mean good, but they are extremely conservative and entrenched to certain unproven principles.
EDIT: Here's an article of health issues related to this topic, with some background info of political situation among organizations like AHA, from a cardiac surgeon (as a side note, there are quite a lot of cardiac surgeons heavily advocating LCHF and campaigning against carbs):
Health Benefits of a Low-Carbohydrate, High-Saturated-Fat Diet
D'OH! How about you read up on what increasing HDL value means...
(Hint: It's a good thing.)
There are lots and lots of studies proving that LCHF very effectively lowers triglycerides and increases HDL. You don't have to worry about small sample sizes, it is consistent.
Again that water argument. You are plain wrong here. How much of that weight loss is water again, in absolute figure? Please tell us.
(Another hint: It's the amount that is bound to glycogen).
Last edited by a moderator:
WhiningKhan
Regular
The mileage does indeed vary, but I have to comment that potatoes are good for stomach when you have the squirts, but when your stomach is already in a good shape, they can make a methane balloon out of you.
I have been a fart machine for all my life, but when I tried LCHF diet, it was like someone closed a valve somewhere. Nothing. Later I've come to believe with personal experiments that potato is the most likely reason all my male friends are honking the horn daily (and I have good reason to believe it's the same with females, they just try harder to hide it). The only things worse in this aspect are cabbage and peas/beans.
WhiningKhan
Regular
No, starch in potatoes is enough to do it - Wikipedia seems to strengthen my case:
Flatulence-producing foods are typically high in certain polysaccharides, (especially oligosaccharides such as inulin). Those foods include beans, lentils, dairy products, onions, garlic, scallions, leeks, turnips, rutabagas, radishes, sweet potatoes, potatoes, cashews, Jerusalem artichokes, oats, wheat, and yeast in breads.
And yet, those on the low-carb diet still reported an increase in adverse effects. They also had less reduction in LDL cholesterol than the more traditional diet group, so the heart disease risk effect is at best mixed, but the existence of other adverse effects likely means the overall effect is negative.
Oh, and you seriously linked to an HIV and vaccine denier to support your case?
WhiningKhan
Regular
And what exactly are those eerie-sounding adverse effects? Stuff like headache (during the transition to ketosis), constipation (avoidable by eating properly), bad breath (due to ketone production and drinking too little water)... Do you honestly think they would have been just passingly mentioned as 'adverse effects' there if they had been something really health-threatening?
You clearly have not read much on this subject. It is the small-particle vLDL cholesterol which is considered the largest risk factor, together with triglycerides - not the larger-particle 'normal' LDL cholesterol. LCHF diet effectively decreases those, as indicated also in this research paper.
However, I believe that cholesterol values are more an indicator than cause for problems. There is no good theory of how the bad cholesterol actually causes atherosclerosis. A lot of research suggests the actual cause is related to inflammation, but nothing is sure yet. Also, this theory presented here sounds quite logical to me:Vasa vasorum hypoxia: initiation of atherosclerosis. According to the authors: Of risk factors of atherosclerosis, only obesity is associated with cholesterol values; nicotin, stress, blood pressure and sleep apnea are not associated with cholesterol, but they are all associated with constriction of small arteries. The factors that lessen the risk of atherosclerosis generally lower the blood pressure, and many of them are not associated with cholesterol.
Fine, let's agree Donald W. Miller is a kook - I've never heard of him before. I'm only familiar with the stuff he referenced in this article.
There is a lot of recent research showing that AHA's recommendations are potentially baseless, or overcautious at minimum. Is this neutral enough for you?
Think saturated fat contributes to heart disease? Think again
gamervivek
Regular
but but science is self-correcting..
edit: I am too skinny for my height, and while reader digest's came out with articles and articles over how to decrease weight, I wanted just the opposite. Amazing where all the extra fat I ate went, eh?
edit2: come to think of it, I started eating rice in copious amounts past few months and that's when I was the heaviest in my life.
edit: I am too skinny for my height, and while reader digest's came out with articles and articles over how to decrease weight, I wanted just the opposite. Amazing where all the extra fat I ate went, eh?
edit2: come to think of it, I started eating rice in copious amounts past few months and that's when I was the heaviest in my life.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why not try looking for scholarly articles, instead of news releases?
Here's one I found:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/166/3/285
The results are mixed at best, but low-carb diets also come along with the problem of tending to lack in general nutrition, so I'm going to have to go with low fat diets as being the better choice (though bear in mind that a low fat diet doesn't mean high carbs: it means switching to more fruits/vegetables/nuts, which tends to reduce total calorie intake compared to the amount of food consumed).
WhiningKhan
Regular
A few posts ago I gave you 6 scholarly articles, you ignored all but one. Why can't you try a bit harder yourself? Why can't you read the news releases and follow links to referenced articles?
Here's some more, but don't think I'm going to waste much more time doing this.
Saturated Fat and Cardiometabolic Risk Factors, Coronary Heart Disease, Stroke, and Diabetes: a Fresh Look at the Evidence
Atherogenic Dyslipidemia: Cardiovascular Risk and Dietary Intervention
Carbohydrate Restriction has a More Favorable Impact on the Metabolic Syndrome than a Low Fat Diet
Limited Effect of Dietary Saturated Fat on Plasma Saturated Fat in the Context of a Low Carbohydrate Diet
And that one repeats what we already dealed with earlier: Improved triglycerides and HDL, not that much on LDL - but this is an older paper which just bundles all LDL together, not acknowledging the current view that the simple LDL figure (and even less the total cholesterol figure) is not really meaningful in respect to CVD risk. Read the papers from 2010 linked above for a more recent view on the subject.
EDIT: For a thorough, brand new article of various blood lipid markers, see The joint effects of apolipoprotein B, apolipoprotein A1, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol on risk: 3510 cases of acute myocardial infarction and 9805 controls. It clearly shows how seriously oversimplified AHA's official cholesterol view is.
That is FUD if anything, and improper following of low-carb diet. I eat much, MUCH more vegetables than before going low carb.
Nobody's claiming that there are no other effective ways to lose weight than LCHF. The point is that for many if not most people, on LCHF keeping the diet is easier due to better ability of handling hunger, like I've repeated on every page of this thread. The reduction of calories on LCHF tends to come automatically, without trying that hard to control yourself with churning stomach.
And the other issue is that LCHF is actually better for CVD risks compared to low-fat, which is opposite to what you are claiming. Ironically, it is suggested that this is due to many nutrients being fat-soluble, so actually the low-fat diet can potentially be deficient on nutritional value...
In Food Choices and Coronary Heart Disease: A Population Based Cohort Study of Rural Swedish Men with 12 Years of Follow-up, it was found that dairy fat together with fruits and vegetables leads to huge improvement in mortality/hospitalization risk, while low-fat with similar vegetables actually makes the risk worse. How does this fit your views?
Last edited by a moderator:
Good point, also my girlfriend who likes to eat everything I buy for myself hates the stuff!
I love bread and potatoes, but I don't like sugar ... partly because I've always favored salty candy, and partly because I just don't feel healthy when I eat sugar. Perhaps the bread here is a lot more wholesome than average though (this is probably true).
I've got a BMI of 21,7 or so though, so I'm pretty healthy at least in that regard (it's harder to tell what the inside of my veins look like).
Potatoes are some of the best food there is. It contains decent carbs but at a low density (pasta has twice the density of potatoes, rice four times), and has an impressive range of vitamins. Also, there are few things that digest better. If my digestive system is upset a little, just eat some pealed, boiled potatoes and everything is back in order almost instantly. Of course your mileage may vary.
Good points, thanks for the info. With better nutrition if im going to have 'a' carb source then perhaps potatoe is the one. I already eat a Bran cereal so my gains from eating wheat bread probably won't be fantastic. I would take it the glycemic index of potatoe is quite good against other complex carbos?
Anyway essentially what im looking to do now is trial a theory of mine:
Every meal has to be a complete meal so to speak. So rather than sitting down with a plate of cereal or something and call it breakfast, I thought to make sure I get plenty of protein, fat, some carbs, vitamins, minerals and fibre or as much as practical every meal. I wonder sometimes if people continue eating because the food they are eating has materials needed for the body but is poor in yield. So pretty much I may have to prepare something each meal rather than be lazy and grab a box.
WhiningKhan
Regular
Actually, potato has a bad glycemic index, but since its glycemic load is pretty low (compared to e.g. wheat), it's OK'ish. It's better to eat potatoes than bread, anyway.
Interesting fact is that potato's GI can be significantly lowered by refrigerating it after boiling. So potato salad is actually better in that respect than freshly boiled potatoes...
Oh, so what is the best carb source for low G.I. with an eye for nutritional value?
But yeah I was intending on making potato salad so thats actually a good thing!
WhiningKhan
Regular
Oh, so what is the best carb source for low G.I. with an eye for nutritional value?
But yeah I was intending on making potato salad so thats actually a good thing!
I've heard people use stuff like eggplant, parsnip and sweet potato (which is strange - it actually contains more sugar than potato, tastes sweet, but apparently has somewhat lower GI) instead of potato due to better vitamin content and lower GI, but IMO that goes a bit overboard. It's not like you are going to immediately put on all the weight you've lost if you experiment a bit while stabilizing your weight. If you like potato, eat potato. If it doesn't seem OK, eat less of it.
Do you know why is that the case?
A habit of mine is to eat food out of refrigerator instead of heating it up. I sort of like my food cold (not frozen though). Like cold pizza, lasagne, steak, rice, soup and potatoes.
I glanced at them. They had typically small sample sizes, which aren't very useful for gauging this sort of thing.
Look, this sort of link spamming really is pointless. You put in far, far less work than I would have to do to go through each one and look at it carefully. So no, I'm not going to bother with any of these. Find a meta-analysis (like the one I posted earlier), if you want to get a decent look at a variety of data.
I will, however, comment on this paper:
The difficulty with this study is that high fat intake was strongly correlated with farming. In other words, those with high fat intake also were much more likely to be in good physical shape. So I don't see how you can say that high fat helps with this study.
It is able to say that fruits and vegetables help, because there isn't nearly as much correlation between ingesting fruits and vegetables and farming/smoking. But I am really not convinced of the high fat result, due to the strong correlation of fat intake with physical activity. They claim to account for this, but come up with only a two month difference in longevity, which I'm really not convinced is above the noise (it doesn't help that they don't show their work here).
WhiningKhan
Regular
How arrogant can one get? I'm not expecting you to refute those studies, as you are obviously not competent for that - I'm providing you links to studies, referred to by the news items you dismissed by a wave of hand asking for scholarly papers instead. My naive assumption was that you might want to educate yourself, but you seem to have adopted _xxx_'s wonderfully open attitude in your discussions with him.
The meta-analysis you posted only gives more strength to claims for superiority of low carb over low fat, when taking into account the knowledge (excluded from that paper) that LDL and total cholesterol values (which are the only ones where low carb was not better than low fat) are the weakest indicators of cardiac risk in the lipid measurements compared to HDL and triglyceride figures. Higher triglycerides are also indicative of smaller particle size of LDL, which in turn has been found to be much more potent cardiac risk than total LDL. Like I already said, the blood lipid issue is much more complex than what current official recommendations suggest, and The joint effects of apolipoprotein B, apolipoprotein A1, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol on risk: 3510 cases of acute myocardial infarction and 9805 controls is the latest paper on that front.
Okay, you choose to not believe the authors. But the fact still stands that there are other studies finding dairy fat harmless or beneficial, and no studies showing dairy fat increasing CVD risk. There is no reason to avoid dairy fat.