|
|
| |
| Free Weekly Newsletter | Post a Question on this Site |
 |
Home |  |
About |
|
Daily Program | |
Lifestyle Tips | |
Why VRP? | |
Order Products | |
Checkout |
|
Account Information | |
Security | |
|
· · |
Why I do not favor Low-Carbohydrate diets I receive many questions and comments from people concerning the popular low-carbohydrate diets, particularly the Atkins Diet. Recently, there have been positive reports about this diet in the media, and even some prestigious medical organizations, while not embracing his program in full, have moved in the low-carb direction in their dietary recommendations. I think it is fine to limit carbohydrates if you do it by cutting out refined carbs. By all means, get rid of the refined sugar, the white flour, the "high fructose corn syrup" they pour into Coca Cola, and other such things. And, if one were to limit carbohydrates by reducing total calories, that would be fine with me too. But, to lower carbohydrates by shifting one's calorie consumption more towards proteins and fats, that I do not recommend. Proteins are required for two purposes: structural proteins (such as the actin and myosin in muscle, and the collagen and elastin in connective tissues) and functional proteins (which would include enzymes, hormones, antibodies, etc.) What protein should not be used for is energy production. The body can burn amino acids (from protein) as a fuel, but to do so, it must split off the amino group (NH2), which then becomes ammonia (NH3), by picking up a free hydrogen ion. However, ammonia is highly irritating, so the body wraps two ammonia molecules together with one molecule of carbonic acid to form a different substance known as urea. Urea is not as irritating as ammonia, but it is still a waste product. When you force the body to burn proteins as fuel, it results in the excess production of urea. It is not uncommon for high-protein eaters to have high urea levels in the blood: in the upper 20s and even in 30s. Ideally, urea levels should be in the teens. This excess urea load is a strain on the kidneys, and also on the liver. How much protein is needed to meet the structure and function needs of the body? The World Health Organization recommends that 7.5% of total calories be derived from protein, which for an adult male consuming 3000 calories a day comes very close to the 56 grams per day recommended by the U.S. government. I am entirely comfortable with these numbers. However, when people eat high-protein diets, they often reach 100 grams, 150 grams, even close to 200 grams of protein per day, and that is clearly excessive. Why do that and have your system swimming in urea when you can eat carbs which burn clean, leaving no residue except water and carbon dioxide? Imagine if you had a car which burned a fuel whose exhaust fumes consisted of nothing but water vapor and carbon dioxide? That would be one clean-burning vehicle. Well, that's about what you get when you eat carbohydrates. Regarding fats, the body needs them not only as a source of concentrated calories but for specific biochemical purposes, such as EPA and DHA which are so vital to the brain, and LA, ALA, GLA, which have specific functions relating to immunity, glandular function, skin health, inflammation, and many other functions. But make no mistake about it: fats are fattening. In terms of calories, all fats deliver 9 calories per gram, whereas carbohydrates only have 4. Furthermore, carbohydrate foods are generally much higher in both water and fiber than are fats. And, water and fiber, of course, have no calories at all. Consequently, the caloric density of carbohydrates tends to be much lower than for fatty foods. Therefore, from the weight control aspect of things, it really does not make sense to load up on fatty foods at the expense of carbohydrates. Remember, fatty foods are "rich," and according to both instinct and tradition, rich foods need to be eaten sparingly. What is interesting to consider is that, living in a state of Nature, there would not be that much fatty food available. Many of the fats people commonly eat do not even exist in Nature, meaning they would be unavailable to those eating a hunter/gatherer diet. Without a tremendous amount of human intervention, there would no such things as butter, margarine, mayonnaise, cheese, liquid oils, cream, lard, etc. A natural diet, consisting of fruits, vegetables, greens, roots, tubers, and lean animal flesh (remember, wild game meat tends to be quite low in fat) would not have very much fat in it. Nuts and seeds are high in fat, but they would only be available seasonally and sporadically, and they would comprise a relatively small part of the above diet, and it is unlikely they would tilt the overall diet very much towards fat. Moreover, raw nuts would definitely have to be considered "good fats." Frankly, I am not opposed to eating some fats. I believe very strongly in the "good fat/bad fat" idea and that it is both permissible and advisable to eat some good fats. But I still think that carbohydrates should make up a larger percentage of the total caloric intake. So what carbohydrates are good to eat? Well, I dearly love my fruits. Don't try to take them away from me, Dr. Atkins. You'll have a fight on your hands. It is not some kind of perversion that human beings are born with a sweet tooth. And when people try to satisfy that sweet tooth by eating candy, ice cream, soda, chocolate, etc. they are barking up the wrong tree. Mangoes, peaches, grapes, watermelon, etc. is what they should be eating. Don't let anyone tell you that eating an apple is going to mess up your insulin level or cause you to make triglycerides. That is pure hogwash. Besides fruits, I think that natural starches can be eaten, including starchy vegetables, beans, and whole grains. Beans give some people a digestive challenge, and you certainly don't have to eat them every day, and you never have to eat them in large quantity. However, I do think that a little is better than none when it comes to beans. Beans are very hearty and nutritious, and they are not fattening at all. Grains are taking a lot of bashing these days, and granted, they can trigger some problems in some people. But if you look at the big picture, you realize that whole grains have been shown to be preventive against heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity- which are the main scourges of modern life. The Roman Army conquered the world on a diet of wheat and barley. The Egyptian workers built the Pyramids on a grain-based diet. If you don't want to eat grains, you don't have to, but I include some whole grains in my diet, and they set just fine with me. Finally, what about starchy vegetables like potatoes? These have really taken the brunt of punishment ever since the "glycemic index" theory came to the fore. This theory rates foods based on how quickly they release sugar into the blood, and the faster a food does so, the worse it is rated. A whole litany of evils has been postulated around this theory, with high blood sugar levels leading to high insulin levels, and increased fat storage, and high triglycerides, leading to "Syndrome X" and from there straight into heart disease and diabetes. According to this glycemic index theory, the common potato is about the worst thing that you can possibly eat. But what is it about the potato that puts it on top of the notorious glycemic index list? It is the simple fact that potato digests very quickly and easily. Imagine, something is being regarded (practically) as poison just because it is easy to digest. But how meaningful and important is the glycemic index theory? Sure it looks impressive on paper, but how does it play out in real life? First of all, people don't usually eat a single food at a time. They eat meals. So you would have to look at the glycemic index of a whole meal, not a single food. The potato, for instance, is rarely eaten plain. People put butter on it, or margarine, or they may melt cheese on it or add some sour cream and bacon bits, or perhaps all of the above. I am not recommending any of that stuff, but all of that added fat would definitely tend to slow down the digestion and absorption of the potato starch. But even if people ate the potato plain, without putting one or more fats on it, they might be eating a steak with it, and the fat in the steak would have the same effect. But let's really play the devil's advocate here and say that you consumed an entire meal of just plain boiled potatoes with nothing on them and nothing with them. Would it be a nutritional disaster? Not necessarily. It would depend on the state of your health. If you are in good shape, as that glucose comes pouring in, it goes straight to the liver via the portal circulation, and your healthy liver is going to quickly convert much of that glucose to glycogen, keeping it from spilling over into the general circulation. And whatever glucose does get past your liver is going to reach your muscles. And because you exercise vigorously and on a regular basis, your muscles are used to storing large amounts of glycogen as well. And so your muscle cells are going to get to work to remove excess sugar from your blood, and they would do it fast enough to keep your blood sugar from getting out of kilter. That horrible scenario from eating a potato painted by the low-carb crowd is really just the end-product of a jaded imagination, or you might say, "wishful thinking of the negative kind." And what bothers me the most is that some prominent, respected doctors, such as Dr. Andrew Weil, have joined the glycemic index bandwagon and are encouraging people to shun potatoes. Hey, potatoes were healthy to eat before glycemic index theory came to fore, and they are still healthy to eat now. Potatoes are good for you! There I said it. And it has been proven! There have been quite a few studies done on people eating a potato-based diet, where almost all of the daily calories came from potatoes, and the results have been consistent: they lost weight, stayed lean, improved their cardiovascular profiles, improved their lipid profiles, and generally became healthier. On the other hand, the pendulum swings in both directions, and there are those who are so afraid of dietary fat, they don't want you to eat any of it. God forbid you should eat a pistachio nut. Heaven help you! Yet, every single study that has ever been done on nuts has shown them to be protective against heart disease, absolutely beneficial in their effect on blood lipids, and very positive in relation to blood sugar, blood pressure, and other health parameters, despite being high in fat. However, if the worst four letter word in your vocabulary is F-A-T-S, the truth about nuts may elude you. So in conclusion, I am not against carbohydrates; I am not against proteins; and I am not even against fats. I think there are good foods within each of these categories which a health-minded person can eat with both enjoyment and benefit. The most important things to remember are to: Keep your total calories in check (remember that limiting total calories is the most proven life extension technique) Avoid refined and impoverished foods of all kinds (meaning both refined carbs and refined fats) Learn the difference between "good fats" and "bad fats." (eat moderately of the former and shun the later) Eat abundantly of fresh fruits and vegetables (particularly green vegetables) Obtain adequate protein (but remember that besides animal protein, plant proteins are excellent, such as beans and nuts) Exercise vigorously and regularly. E-mail to a friend |
