Guest guest Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 In chapter 15 of his book, WAP cured one boy of his problems with " removal of the white flour products and in their stead the use of freshly cracked or ground wheat and oats used with whole milk to whcih was added a small amount of specially high vitamin butter.... " So I guess he recommended them sometimes. Irene At 01:35 AM 6/17/05, you wrote: >2. Why is it that Weston Price admits the consumption of grains >(wheat included), under certain conditions (I don't know if he >actually recommends them) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 --- José Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote: > Let's assume Christie is right. Nobody is eating a no-carb diet. I don't know which message you are referring to, but she is correct - it is not possible to have a 0 carb diet simply because *all* foods contains some amount of carbs. Even raw meat has carbs from the glycogen stores. The *only* food that technically has 0 carbs is liquid sucralose (Splenda), but I don't think anyone on this list will consider it " food " , although a lot of low-carbers rave about it ! > If they skip grains and tubers, they are eating low-carb. Relative is the key here - they are eating a relatively low-carb diet when compared to the SAD. They are still eating high-carb if you compare to an Eskimo diet for instance. > If they add grains, tubers or both, then they may be eating a > moderate-carb or high-carb diet, depending on how much they are > eating. In my book, the moment you add grains, it crosses the boundary into high-carb. The assumption I am making is that the person is eating at least some amount of fruits and vegetables. If the only source of your carbs is from grains and not vegetables/fruits, then you are in serious trouble. Assuming you are consuming a decent amount of vegetables and some fruit, when you add grains to the equation, it becomes high-carb - at least in the books of people like me who try to follow Atkins-style LC diets. > Well, it is fairly difficult to decide when a diet is low or moderate > carb, because you may eat some rice, for instance, but in such a > small quantity or not regularly that it is almost negligible. It is entirely an individual situation. Atkins used to call it " Maintenance Level of carbs " - that is the amount of carbs you can eat in a day to maintain your current weight. Any less and you lose weight, any more and you gain weight. > 1. How many people on this list are strictly following a diet devoid > of grains (beans included) and tubers? Devoid of starches? (I suppose > not every one will respond, but...) And for how long have they been > following it? I am not following it " strictly " as you define it, but we have been grain free for about 2 years now, except for rice. We do eat rice every now and then. No beans either, but lentils are consumed fairly regularly. Devoid of starches - no. Very difficult to achieve with our current lifestyle. -Pratick ____________________________________________________ Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 >> If they skip grains and tubers, they are eating low-carb. << Well, no... sugar is loaded with carbs and lots of people eat very little vegetable matter of any kind, including grains or tubers, and eats lots and lots of sugar. > 1. How many people on this list are strictly following a diet devoid > of grains (beans included) and tubers? Devoid of starches? (I suppose > not every one will respond, but...) And for how long have they been > following it? I get around 5 percent of my calories from carbohydrate, or a bit less. I don't eat any grains or legumes, and I don't eat any potatos or carrots. I wouldn't say " devoid of starches " because I believe some of the vegetables I eat might have some starch content. It's not something I've looked into. > 2. Why is it that Weston Price admits the consumption of grains > (wheat included), under certain conditions (I don't know if he > actually recommends them) and many people on this very list seem to > be radically against grains? Who is " radically against grains " ? I don't think you understand what Weston Price really did and wrote. He catalogued what healthy traditional diets included, and identified the things that all the wildly disparate diets he looked at had in common. Have you read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration or Nourishing Traditions? Christie Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986 http://www.caberfeidh.com http://doggedblog.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 >2. Why is it that Weston Price admits the consumption of grains >(wheat included), under certain conditions (I don't know if he >actually recommends them) and many people on this very list seem to >be radically against grains? Or can't wait for the day when they >won't be eating any more grains or any more tubers? > > It would be better, I think, to call the " grains and tubers " " starches " , which gets out of the confusion of " no carb " . What you are talking about is a " no starch " diet, which the Paleo diet and the SCD basically are. I for one am NOT a " no starch " person at all, nor have I ever said that was a lifestyle people " should " do. I might eat LESS of them than a lot of people, but that is because they are boring ... My anti-wheat stance is based on *genetics* though, which Price just didn't know about. He also didn't know that gluten affects absorption of nutrients. He did know that whole wheat is a LOT better than finely ground white flour ... which it is: whole wheat doesn't " stick " to your fingers like white flour dough does: try it sometime! Esp. in the forms he recommended it (like gruels and cracked wheat bread). He did, however, single out " white flour " over and over and over again in his book as the " culprit " in health destruction. He was almost as anti-flour as I am! (Ok, he mentions sugar a lot too). He didn't single out " white rice " though ... even though white rice has as devoid of nutrients as white flour is. What makes white flour worse than white rice? Why don't the Koreans, with their white rice diet, have skinny faces and crooked teeth? Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 > >> If they skip grains and tubers, they are eating low-carb. << > > Well, no... sugar is loaded with carbs and lots of people eat very little > vegetable matter of any kind, including grains or tubers, and eats lots and > lots of sugar. ** Well, but I was not thinking of " sugar " as real food. I am sorry: I should have mentioned that before. > > 1. How many people on this list are strictly following a diet devoid > > of grains (beans included) and tubers? Devoid of starches? (I suppose > > not every one will respond, but...) And for how long have they been > > following it? > > I get around 5 percent of my calories from carbohydrate, or a bit less. I > don't eat any grains or legumes, and I don't eat any potatos or carrots. I > wouldn't say " devoid of starches " because I believe some of the vegetables I > eat might have some starch content. It's not something I've looked into. ** You didn't say how long, but it's alright, don't worry. I see you are fine. > > 2. Why is it that Weston Price admits the consumption of grains > > (wheat included), under certain conditions (I don't know if he > > actually recommends them) and many people on this very list seem to > > be radically against grains? > > Who is " radically against grains " ? ** Well, maybe I chose the wrong words again. Let's put it like this: not grain-friendly. Is that a possible coinage? > I don't think you understand what Weston Price really did and wrote. He > catalogued what healthy traditional diets included, and identified the > things that all the wildly disparate diets he looked at had in common. Have > you read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration or Nourishing Traditions? ** I think you are right again. Actually I don't know much about Weston Price. About twenty years ago or even more I read an article about him in a macrobiotic magazine. I liked it very much and clipped it. I still have that article somewhere in this messy room. I remember there were pictures of natives from Oceania, if I am not wrong, and from Ireland (about Ireland I am certain, but you wouldn't call them natives, would you?). If my memory doesn't fail me, he was an ophthalmologist (eye medicine). Or was he a dentist? Anyway, something to do with head organs. - I have found him again now, on this list. I read parts of Nourishing Traditions (have the book myself). You don't need my opinion, do you? So, I think this is my " track record " , so to say. I hope you are not too disappointed. Regards, José > > Christie > Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds > Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986 > http://www.caberfeidh.com > http://doggedblog.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 > > Let's assume Christie is right. Nobody is eating a no-carb diet. > > I don't know which message you are referring to, but she is correct - it is not possible > to have a 0 carb diet simply because *all* foods contains some amount of carbs. > > Even raw meat has carbs from the glycogen stores. ** You are right. I would say: carbs are a necessary food for all animals, even carnivores. I am not talking necessarily about grains here. > > The *only* food that technically has 0 carbs is liquid sucralose (Splenda), but I don't > think anyone on this list will consider it " food " , although a lot of low-carbers rave > about it ! > > > If they skip grains and tubers, they are eating low-carb. > > Relative is the key here - they are eating a relatively low-carb diet when compared to > the SAD. > They are still eating high-carb if you compare to an Eskimo diet for instance. ** That is right again. But why should we bother to compare our diets to the Eskimo diet? We are living in very different environments... > > If they add grains, tubers or both, then they may be eating a > > moderate-carb or high-carb diet, depending on how much they are > > eating. > > In my book, the moment you add grains, it crosses the boundary into high-carb. ** I am not sure about that. You can be right, but I would rather insist that it is a function of how much you are eating. > The assumption I am making is that the person is eating at least some amount of fruits > and vegetables. > > If the only source of your carbs is from grains and not vegetables/fruits, then you are > in serious trouble. ** I agree, but there is a difference: I think we all need veggies and fruits not exactly because of their carb content, but because of the vitamins (C most of all), the oligoelements, the fiber, etc. I know you will agree with me, but I think that you " might " (this is the conditional) be in trouble if you - a modern citizen, not an Eskimo - will rely " only " on veggies and fruits for your carbs. Please don't overlook the inverted commas. > Assuming you are consuming a decent amount of vegetables and some fruit, when you add > grains to the equation, it becomes high-carb - at least in the books of people like me > who try to follow Atkins-style LC diets. > ** Although I am sometimes using numbers and percents, I really don't much like talking about nutrition as if it were maths. > > Well, it is fairly difficult to decide when a diet is low or moderate > > carb, because you may eat some rice, for instance, but in such a > > small quantity or not regularly that it is almost negligible. > > It is entirely an individual situation. > Atkins used to call it " Maintenance Level of carbs " - that is the amount of carbs you can > eat in a day to maintain your current weight. > Any less and you lose weight, any more and you gain weight. > > > 1. How many people on this list are strictly following a diet devoid > > of grains (beans included) and tubers? Devoid of starches? (I suppose > > not every one will respond, but...) And for how long have they been > > following it? > > I am not following it " strictly " as you define it, but we have been grain free for about > 2 years now, except for rice. > We do eat rice every now and then. > No beans either, but lentils are consumed fairly regularly. > Devoid of starches - no. Very difficult to achieve with our current lifestyle. ** Then I have nothing else to add. I agree, and it was a pleasure talking to you, so faraway from me. José > -Pratick > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Sports > Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football > http://football.fantasysports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 >> I think that you " might " (this is the conditional) be in trouble if you - a modern citizen, not an Eskimo - will rely " only " on veggies and fruits for your carbs. << Since we have no dietary requirement for carbs at all... why would that be? There are valuable nutrients in fruits and veggies, I agree... but the carbs they contain are not among them. Christie Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986 http://www.caberfeidh.com http://doggedblog.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Thanks. Now I understand. I am amazed. 130 pounds is about as much I weight myself. You don't have to go on with your rationale. José > >> ** You didn't say how long, but it's alright, don't worry. I see you > are fine. << > > A little over two years now. I have never felt better and have lost 130 > pounds. > > Christie > Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds > Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986 > http://www.caberfeidh.com > http://doggedblog.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 , Have you ever heard of " metabolic typing " (Mercola.com)? It is very interesting. Here is the link in case you are interested in finding out your own metabolic type: http://www.mercola.com/2003/feb/26/metabolic_typing.htm According to this theory, everyone is different and there is no ONE diet that is right for everyone. Some people such as myself do best on a high-protein diet. Others must have more carbohydrates in the form of fruits and vegetables. And then there are others who require more grains and starches, and yet again there are other cultures and ethnic groups who require lots of dairy. It is all a matter of biochemistry and metabolism. For anyone to tout one diet as being best for everyone is quite intolerant and narrow-minded of the individual needs of each human body. It is highly beneficial, however, for all of us to find out which diet is best for oneself and one's family. You, , have a family who enjoys and apparently does quite well on your dietary/cultural diet. If you and your family are thriving on the diet you are on, then you should continue it--perhaps tweaking it where necessary as you gain more understanding of nutrition and your own personal dietary needs. But do not be made to feel that there is only one best diet. We have all evolved and adapted to our environments. The eskimo people, until quite recently, lived entirely on sea food, whale blubber, meat and fat (almost all of it raw). Other races/ethnic groups would not do well on this diet at all. Some folks are gluten intolerant. Others do very well on grains of all types. The key is finding out what works best for YOU and not letting the overzealous, radical arguments of others sway you into following a diet that doesn't fit your needs. I love following this group and I have gleaned a great deal of information from everyone here, but I do see a tendency in some to be overly dogmatic about their own personal dietary beliefs. We all want the same thing, though--that is--to be healthy. Peace and God bless, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 said <<We have all evolved and adapted to our environments. The eskimo people, until quite recently, lived entirely on sea food, whale blubber, meat and fat (almost all of it raw). Other races/ethnic groups would not do well on this diet at all. are you suggesting that Stefansson and , who lived with the Eskimos this way for some time (how long?) and volunteered to live on a similar diet for a year after they returned to the US and suffered no ill effects, would have eventually " not done well " if they continued for a longer period of time? Dr Mercola says << " At any given point in time, there are a number of factors that determine peoples' unique nutritional requirements, but none is more significant than a person's ancestral heritage. It's a matter of classic Darwinian principles of evolution and adaptation, natural selection, genetic mutation and survival of the fittest. Over thousands of years of evolutionary history, people in different parts of the world developed very specific dietary needs as an adaptation mechanism, in response to many unique aspects of their habitats and lifestyles -- including climate, geography, vegetation, and naturally occurring food supplies. As an example, people from cold northern regions of the world have historically relied very heavily on animal protein, simply because that's the primary food source available in wintry climates. Thus they have radically different nutritional needs than people from tropical regions, where the environment is rich in vegetative diversity year round. In the early part of the 20th century, a brilliant scientist by the name of Weston Price, demonstrated this in no uncertain terms. He traveled all over the world and sought out all the indigenous populations to study their diet and their health. His discoveries were remarkable and extremely important. What he discovered was that: a.. The diets of all the indigenous peoples were tremendously varied (being dependent on geography, climate and the food stuffs naturally available) b.. Yet those indigenous people who followed their ancestral diets were robustly healthy. c.. But those who moved away or for other reasons strayed from their ancestral diet developed degenerative processes. " Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that last point only valid when the primitives moved to the white man's diet with refined foods? Did Price study any individuals that moved to another primitive groups' diet ie any other diet not containing refined or processed foods?? Please understand that I am not disagreeing with Metabolic Typing on the whole, in fact I find myself agreeing with the concept. I am only questioning whether one group could or could not do well on anothers ancestral diet. This appears to be what WAPF is telling me. We all have to tweak it to our own individual genetic needs. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 -- > ** You are right. I would say: carbs are a necessary food for all > animals, even carnivores. I am not talking necessarily about grains > here. Carbs (from fruits and veggies) are necessary only for the vitamins, minerals, fiber, and anti-oxidants that they carry, and not for the energy calories. Your body can very easily burn fat for energy, instead of burning carbs (fat-metabolism vs carb-metabolism). > ** That is right again. But why should we bother to compare our diets > to the Eskimo diet? We are living in very different environments... For the same reason that we should read history - to learn something. Traditional diets can teach us a lot about our present - diet, nutrition, disease, lifestyle - heck even about politics, state, society, jurisprudence, family, etc. How we acquire and prepare our food determines our politics, art, society and everything else related to it. > ** I am not sure about that. You can be right, but I would rather > insist that it is a function of how much you are eating. *How* much you eat depends on *what* you eat. Grains are known to cause cravings and further hunger - the more you eat, the more you *feel* like eating. This is true for most refined carbs. Fats and proteins on the other hand, fill you sooner and keeps you full longer. In the end, it translates to less quantity food overall, but better quality. Vegetables and fruits are essential carbs because they give you valuable antioxidants and minerals, as well as add colour and flavour to your meals. -Pratick __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 > -- > > > ** You are right. I would say: carbs are a necessary food for all > > animals, even carnivores. I am not talking necessarily about grains > > here. > > Carbs (from fruits and veggies) are necessary only for the vitamins, minerals, fiber, and > anti-oxidants that they carry, and not for the energy calories. > Your body can very easily burn fat for energy, instead of burning carbs (fat-metabolism > vs carb-metabolism). ### Nevertheless, some people, even on this list, find it necessary to re-introduce some carbs (starches, I mean) into their diets after a period of " cold turkey " . It is not me who is saying that, it is other people. I don't eat much carbs, but I have never stayed too long away from them. > > > ** That is right again. But why should we bother to compare our diets > > to the Eskimo diet? We are living in very different environments... > > For the same reason that we should read history - to learn something. > Traditional diets can teach us a lot about our present - diet, nutrition, disease, > lifestyle - heck even about politics, state, society, jurisprudence, family, etc. > How we acquire and prepare our food determines our politics, art, society and everything > else related to it. ### I agree. We read History to learn, not necessarily to copy. > > ** I am not sure about that. You can be right, but I would rather > > insist that it is a function of how much you are eating. > > *How* much you eat depends on *what* you eat. ### Not very sure about this. I don't have a motto myself, but I think this one could be true: anything, however good it is, can turn into poison if taken in excess; anything, however dangerous it is, can be used, if proper care is taken. > Grains are known to cause cravings and further hunger - the more you eat, the more you > *feel* like eating. ### This doesn't happen with me. I am quite satisfied with two spoonfuls of rice or three boiled potatoes. I don't need more carbs and I rarely feel hungry between meals. > This is true for most refined carbs. > Fats and proteins on the other hand, fill you sooner and keeps you full longer. > In the end, it translates to less quantity food overall, but better quality. > > Vegetables and fruits are essential carbs because they give you valuable antioxidants and > minerals, as well as add colour and flavour to your meals. ### I agree with the colours and the flavour. I know, however, people who eat very little veggies (but enough fruit) and do fine, or who eat very little fruit (but enough veggies) and do fine, too. More difficult is it to find someone who skips both and still does fine. Maybe there are such people. One never knows. José > -Pratick > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 >Carbs (from fruits and veggies) are necessary only for the vitamins, minerals, fiber, and >anti-oxidants that they carry, and not for the energy calories. >Your body can very easily burn fat for energy, instead of burning carbs (fat-metabolism >vs carb-metabolism). I'll second what Pratick said. The body does NOT burn " carbs " per se. When you feel " energetic " after a meal, that is basically a hormonal illusion: you aren't burning much of the food you *just* ate, but your body releases food it's already stored as glycogen and lipids and releases a chemical that says " ok, you've eaten enough " and makes you feel good. There are 3 main cellular fuel mixes: 1. Fat+a little glucose. This is the normal metabolic path. Your " food " does not get burned directly: first it turns into fat and glucose (you get some burnable fat and some glucose in your food, of course, but most of your food has to be chemically changed to be used by cells). 2. Glucose only. This is used when you do heavy excercise, like weight lifting. Except for your brain, which only burns glucose, no fat, all the time. I think some people who are out of shape and eat too many carbs use this metabolic path more though, because they have so much extra glucose floating around in the blood and they need to get rid of it. 3. Fat only. This is " emergency " processing. Ketones get produced which the brain can use instead of glucose. But if the person is always on a very, very low carb diet (like the Inuit) the body adapts and learns to make glucose from protein. The Inuit, and carnivores, are not in ketosis even though they don't get any great amount of carbs in their diet. #3 uses more calories, which makes it great for losing weight, but Nature likes efficiency so will try to revert to #1 (which is a LOT better than #2 for resting metabolism). Weight lifters and athletes tend to use #2 processing when exercising, so they like to have lots of stored glycogen, which is why a low-carb diet might not be ideal. Storing LOTS of glycogen is better for them, hence the Warrior Diet! (train the body to store lots of glycogen!). So no human being *needs* carbs for energy. Going to route #3 is uncomfortable for many people, because we aren't used to it, and maybe some people can't adapt. But epidemiologically, there is more evidence that people actually get ILL on on diet with too much carb of the wrong sort (like the Pima indians) or too much protein and no fat (like the early settlers living off beef jerky). People on a higher-fat lower-carb diet do ok unless the fat is of a toxic sort (like corn oil). Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 Pratick, >*How* much you eat depends on *what* you eat. >Grains are known to cause cravings and further hunger - the more you eat, the more you >*feel* like eating. >This is true for most refined carbs. >Fats and proteins on the other hand, fill you sooner and keeps you full longer. >In the end, it translates to less quantity food overall, but better quality. > >Vegetables and fruits are essential carbs because they give you valuable antioxidants and >minerals, as well as add colour and flavour to your meals. > >-Pratick > You know, as a vegetarian, I ate a much higher quantity of food than I do now. I agree about the blood sugar/insulin roller coaster that high carb meals create, causing hunger soon after eating. I also think that when the diet is high in grains and legumes, part of the problem with increased hunger and consumption may concern the antinutrients present in these " modern " foods blocking absorption of vital nutrients. I believe the body may be starving for nutrition, which provokes a signal to eat more. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.