LCHF - Low Carb High Fat Diet Ver 2

[HappyMartin]

 

 

Grains (wheat, barley, rye, oats, sorghum, millet, etc) are not the nice wholesome foods we have (only relatively recently) been told is good for us. 100 years ago they were considered good enough only to feed livestock to fatten them up, certainly not fit for human consumption. We need to get back to that.

 

Good old Mark Sisson on the subject of grains: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-grains-are-unhealthy/#axzz2jgduR254. Gets himself quite worked up about it in the process

 

Another one: http://wellnessmama.com/575/how-grains-are-killing-you-slowly/

 

Sorry tombeej but I don't buy that for a second. Bread has been baked for centuries. South Americans grew corn to eat. You can find recipes that are well over 100 years old for gruel which was oats and molasses.

 

To say we only fed those grains to animals 100 years ago is mot accurate at all.

 

While I support a lot being said on this thread and have even implemented much of it I do feel that some things are plain wrong

 

An example would be saying cave men ate such and such. Doesnt impress me at all. Way too much conjecture about what they ate and anyway they lived like 21 years so who cares. That's not science. That's emotive nonsense.

 

What we want is studies. Not guess work about what cavemen ate and what it does to us.

 

Yes we eat too much processed carbs. Yes we eat too much of everything. Yes we have been mislead by large companies and lobby groups. Yes there is much of value to read here.

 

Diet is only a part of the problem. How about we are too inactive. We don't move enough. We hardly ever elevate our heart rates unless we are watching a scary movie or are offended by a taxi while sitting in our cars on our fat butts.

 

Anyway rant off.

 

Sorry guys. Having a bad life. Not picking on you tombeej

[tombeej]

Sorry tombeej but I don't buy that for a second. Bread has been baked for centuries. South Americans grew corn to eat. You can find recipes that are well over 100 years old for gruel which was oats and molasses.

 

To say we only fed those grains to animals 100 years ago is mot accurate at all.

 

While I support a lot being said on this thread and have even implemented much of it I do feel that some things are plain wrong

 

An example would be saying cave men ate such and such. Doesnt impress me at all. Way too much conjecture about what they ate and anyway they lived like 21 years so who cares. That's not science. That's emotive nonsense.

 

What we want is studies. Not guess work about what cavemen ate and what it does to us.

 

Yes we eat too much processed carbs. Yes we eat too much of everything. Yes we have been mislead by large companies and lobby groups. Yes there is much of value to read here.

 

Diet is only a part of the problem. How about we are too inactive. We don't move enough. We hardly ever elevate our heart rates unless we are watching a scary movie or are offended by a taxi while sitting in our cars on our fat butts.

 

Anyway rant off.

 

Sorry guys. Having a bad life. Not picking on you tombeej

 

No problem .

 

TBH I realise that didn't explain myself well (from typing on a smart phone, I guess. I'll take more time to phrase my words next time). What I was referring to - because I was thinking of oats at the time of writing - was the fact that we've only been eating these things as modern breakfast cereals, etc in the last 100 years. Since Mr. Kellogg appeared on the scene.

 

I'm of course very familiar with the fact that humans have been cultivating grains for at least the last 10,000 years. And that there have been finds in southern Africa, for example, showing early people growing and eating sorghum as far back as 100,000 years ago. I am also aware that people have been eating oat porridge for centuries, very likely at breakfast time as well! I'm also very familiar with the history of milled wheat and the culture of making bread, from the ancient Greeks & Romans, etc., and into the Middle Ages (e.g. in 168BC the first Bakers Guild was formed in the Roman Empire, and by the time of Christ there were more than 300 specialist pastry chefs in Rome).

 

Anyway, it still doesn't change the fact that grains contain varying amounts of gluten (+ glutenin), phytates and lectin.

 

And the knowledge we have about the effects that these proteins/chemicals have on our bodies is certainly based on hard science, not on emotion. There are bucket loads of scientific studies, research papers, etc. widely available on the subject online and in scientific journals. Type 'lectins' into the Google search engine and start reading. Do the same for the other two. Interesting stuff.

 

Besides that, those ancient strains that our ancestors harvested are vastly different to the modern mutations we're cultivating today. They're even very different to what people were eating just 100 years ago. For example, modern wheat really isn't wheat at all. This is fact, not opinion. We've taken a group of plants that at best were never designed to be eaten by us, and then made them worse!

 

And 100 years ago, people hadn't yet been told that the 'healthy food pyramid' involves a diet built on a foundation of grains (6 - 11 servings a day) and 'fat free' everything. They were lucky; they didn't have any concept then of the various health epidemics we 'modern folks' are having to deal with today. Again, fact, not opinion.

 

I've read the science. I also believe I've seen past the emotional responses - from both sides of the grains argument. And it is my considered opinion that grains have no place in my life. Happily for me, my family are finally also of the same opinion, having watched first-hand my own transformation over the past 2 years. And our health is so much better for it.

 

Lastly, I'm very much with you on your point that diet is only part of the problem. A big part of the problem lies in our sedentary lifestyles, the portion sizes of our meals, and other factors. A healthy lifestyle cannot happen if one only focuses on diet. Agreed. But since this thread is about diet specifically, I'm sure that's why the posts on this thread (including mine) tend to focus on that.

 

cheers,

Tom

Edited November 6, 2013 by tombeej

[Helpmytrap]

Anyway, it still doesn't change the fact that grains contain varying amounts of gluten (+ glutenin), phytates and lectin.

 

I've read the science. I also believe I've seen past the emotional responses - from both sides of the grains argument.

I think that those that argue in the favour of grains or "Whole Grains" don't take these 3 things into account. They just see it as a unprocessed food, therefore it must be healthy...

 

The way I see it, if you are eating food high in phytates (Do you get low levels in non-grain/legume sources?) you are wasting money eating all the nutritious food in your diet due to the anti-nutrient characteristics of phytates. Granted, rather "waste" money eating quality whole foods than starches and processed foods.

[Leon Besaans]

 

 

Lastly, I'm very much with you on your point that diet is only part of the problem. A big part of the problem lies in our sedentary lifestyles, the portion sizes of our meals, and other factors. A healthy lifestyle cannot happen if one only focuses on diet. Agreed. But since this thread is about diet specifically, I'm sure that's why the posts on this thread (including mine) tend to focus on that.

 

cheers,

Tom

 

Yoh,

 

I have always said us white people are really stupid, cause those Basothos can sit around their rondavel all day while the women cultivate the fields and brew some beer for the BWANA....

 

All the best.

[MuddyMike]

Hi,

 

I am new to this whole LCHF diet, but I am willing to try anything. Not that I am very overweight. I was 80 now down to 76kg, target by year end 68kg. For me the benefits have been far wider reaching than just weight loss. My wife, son and I have sufferred with all kinds of issues which I believe were due to the grains we were eating such as bloating, tiredness and allergies. We have been on this diet for around 4 weeks and my results are as follows:

 

1. Lost just short of 4kg

2. Allergies almost gone and medication almost stopped

3. Sleeping better

4. No mid afternoon slump in energy levels - nice stable blood sugar levels

5. Very seldom do I feel hungry

6. For the 1st week or two my rides were good but I didnt feel as though I could put the hammer down at will, I guess my body was getting used to the change in energy source. On Sunday things changed, I took on a mtb strava segment - 2.1km at around 4.4%. I ripped it a new one - dropped my best time from 7:46 to 7:03 - I couldnt believe it and that was after a good 60km in the legs already. (No change in training routine)

 

There is still a huge amount for me to learn, but I will listen to my body and give this a fair go to see the results and modify as I understand my bodies needs better.

 

Oh, yes the food is awesome.... I can eat lamb chops and bacon again (with lots of spinach and other greens)

Edited November 6, 2013 by MuddyMike

[tombeej]

Happy’s post does pose a valid question about some of the belief systems that the Paleo movement seems to be based on, and even though I say that I follow a Paleo diet, TBH I share similar concerns.

 

For example, certain specific statements that people make about what people supposedly ate during the paleolithic period, and how we have evolved as a result, just don’t ring true for me.

 

A lot of Paleo bloggers/writers/experts have come up with some fantastical statements about what our ancestors ate then, and I’m sure (as Happy was pointing out) that a lot of it is based less fact than it is, as I said, on a ‘belief system’.

 

For example, a lot has been written about the Inuits in the Arctic north with their almost exclusive diet of fat and protein, but then there also examples of other hunter-gatherer people like the Hazda tribe in east Africa, who have a completely different diet composed mostly of plants and relatively little animal meat.

 

And take a look at the venison we know in SA: you can’t get leaner meat than that (except maybe ostrich. Oh wait, that would also constitute a local food!). Wild meat is what we’d be eating if we truly lived the Paleo way. But if we were transported back in time to Paleolithic South Africa, exactly where would we find the thick fatty animal cuts that are supposedly what we were born to eat?

 

The inconvenient answer that many Paleo ‘believers’ choose to ignore (hoping it just goes away) is that there are significant regional differences in diet between ancient hunter-gatherer tribes. It all depends on where a person comes from and what foods are available there. In some places, the venison is very fatty (the Arctic), while in other places (the African savannah) all the wild meat is very lean.

 

Here’s an interesting article about that. In the interest of ensuring we always keep an open mind about LCHF/Paleo, and not fall victim to descending into a narrow-focused ‘belief system’, I encourage you to read it.

 

And here's another one. Worth a read for sure.

 

---------------

 

We have been seriously side-tracked these past few decades by a mistaken, misguided, dangerous and damaging fear of healthy fats (“saturated fats cause heart disease”), a belief that a healthy lifestyle is somehow based on sugary, starchy, processed, refined carbs, that wholegrain foods are somehow ‘healthy’, that cholesterol is something to fear, that all you need to do to stay healthy is continue to buy all those vitamin/diet pills that the drug peddlars (I mean pharmaceutical companies) have conned you into buying, and so it goes.

 

So what exactly is the perfect human diet?

 

Well I certainly can’t claim to know it.

 

But I have to say that what the LCHF/Paleo movement has done in terms of getting people to start asking the right questions about what a healthy diet really is, well I think its positive contribution to us all has been immense.

 

I personally believe that once this latest phase of our ‘evolution of understanding’ is complete in years to come, we might look back and recognise the immense good that LCHF/Paleo brought to our collective knowledge.

 

Does it have all the answers? No, I certainly don’t think so. But I believe we are finally starting to head in the right direction.

 

And in the absence of any other food philosophy worth a damn (in my opinion) right now, well that is all I need to know for now. So I will continue to actively practise the broad tenants of the Paleo diet as I understand it, and where it makes sense for me.

 

Paleo FTW!

 

Well that’s it from me. For this thread. For good. I guess I'm done here.

 

Thank you to everyone who contributed so much to this amazing thread – by far the best on the Hub! Keep it up .

 

Good bye,

Tom

[Berg Man]

I would be interested to know what the life spans were of the paleo era and what there particular diseases were. Same for the Hazda tribes, Eskimos and Eastern (Japanese and Chinese). There are many cultures that rely a lot on carbs to survive. I also think that the human body is able to adapt to what we are able to find and kill in order to survive. The problem these days is that everything is so processed and there is so much available to us that we need never go hungry again. I also believe that we also eat far more than we need to.

[Berg Man]

Another worry for me is that we don't actually know the long term consequences of low/no carbs and high fat. There are some who believe that it may screw around with our bodies insulin sensitivity too much and can have other side effects that I can't recall right now.

 

I am always wary of something that gets too hyped up and is too trendy. For sure I believe that too much processed food is bad for us, just look at the obesity rates around the world. I for one am trying to just eat as whole a foods as is possible and trying to keep away from refined carbs.

[zappa]

Good post Tombeej.

[DaleE]

..... So I will continue to actively practise the broad tenants of the Paleo diet as I understand it, and where it makes sense for me.

Good bye,

Tom

 

Tom,

Sad to see you go - have appreciated your input to this thread. It's a real tragedy when folk who have much to offer feel not wanted or pressure to leave these discussions.

 

Rant on ....

The more I learn, the more I come to agree with the statement in bold above ... if it works for you, stick with it ... I cannot for the life of me understand all the hype / vitriol / anger / resentment / fighting that goes around ANY diet discussion. When will we collectively realise that each person is different, and just because one approach does not work for you personally, does not mean it is something to be reviled and despised?

What this debate has done over the last year is removed any trust I had in the medical community at large - how do they expect to engender trust from their patients when they are so closed minded to discussing things in a positive light?

Nutrition is not a religion ... BUT ... I'm not sure it's really science either! RCT's, double blind trials, observational studies, etc, etc, are all (imho) only valid for the folk in the study ... how do I draw any conclusions for me personally based on a trial done in europe where the genetic makeup is different to mine??? Look at the similarities and think critically about how it MAY apply to you; then make changes to your diet and measure the results.

 

On the positive side of all this debate and anger is the fact that more and more folk are becoming aware of the issues around sugar, unhealthy carbs, fast food, trans fats, whole foods, diabetes, etc Almost every day I find myself having a conversation about diet with someone looking for more information .. and what is really exciting is that I'm starting to hear folk speak about diet for reasons of real health, not just weight loss. I know the difference may seem small to some, but to me that's a huge win.

 

Rant off ...

[DaleE]

Another worry for me is that we don't actually know the long term consequences of low/no carbs and high fat. There are some who believe that it may screw around with our bodies insulin sensitivity too much and can have other side effects that I can't recall right now.

 

When doing you're research into long term effects, just make sure you realise that some of the theoretical issues with LCHF are based on assumptions of Very Low Carb diets (VLC), i.e 20g per day or less. These are normally medically supervised diets to treat some other issue (cancer, altsheimers, seizures, etc). It's really unlikely that anyone here will be consistently that low for a long period of time. happymartins approach of using VLC for weight loss for short periods is possible, but long term it's really hard to maintain.

 

50-100g/day is a more realistic sustainable value for someone who eats predominantly LCHF with veggies, salad and the occasional good carb or even 'bad carb' thrown in ... and if all your blood results improve steadily over time at that level, then I struggle to see how this can be a bad thing.

[davetapson]

Hey Tom - we need your input - it's all about a balanced view and yours is great for that. One of the best.

 

There is some twak spoken on this thread by those with agendas not aligned to what this thread is all about - but it's a public forum and you always get morons. On the whole, the thread is the most informative and civilised on the hub.

 

When / if you get over what has particularly peed you off, please don't not contribute... don't let the trolls win...

[davetapson]

duplicate

Edited November 6, 2013 by davetapson

[davetapson]

duplicate

Edited November 6, 2013 by davetapson

[htone]

 

 

Tom,

Sad to see you go - have appreciated your input to this thread. It's a real tragedy when folk who have much to offer feel not wanted or pressure to leave these discussions.

 

Couldn't agree more and confess to harbouring similar feelings.

[2wheelsgood]

tombeej - I haven't been following this thread at all, but your post yesterday was very interesting, thank you.

 

I have a question regarding typical LCHF dieting. Is calorie counting supposed to be a part of it? Several sources I've read claim eat all the fat you want, no need to worry about calories. Intuitively this does not make sense, does not extend logically. If it did extend you'd have guys with ripped abs who were eating blocks of butter for breakfast and buckets of KFC for lunch and dinner. You'd also have guys looking like rakes, while eating thousands of calories of fat every day. I ain't never seen nunna dat. (Or are they out there and I've somehow been missing them? stranger things have happened I guess)

So can it be that there's no need for calorie counting in the early-mid stages of fat loss, but once you get down to low levels of bodyfat the dietary fat intake has to be monitored/restricted? Or what's the deal?