212 579 9320
I just finished reading Primal Body – Primal Mind by Nora T. Gedgaudas and I have to say it is a worthy read.
As well read on the subject of nutrition as I like to think I am, Nora really knows her stuff. Her chapter on carbohydrate metabolism is spot on and served to remind me that every single piece of bread we eat or every little sip of soda we take leads us down the path to premature cellular destruction, meaning, sugar ages us faster.
I've posted this before but I'll say it again - the normal level of blood sugar for the typical adult is about half a teaspoon or ~2 grams (can be slightly more for larger people, less for children). That's it. As Nora puts it:
"The body is literally obsessed with maintaining glucose within minimally normal levels."
A small bagel contains 20 grams of sugar – over 5 times the normal circulating amount. Think about what you eat in a typical day and see if you think you are glycating your way to premature aging and an earlier grave.
None of this is speculation by the way. Sugar is as caustic to our bodies as oxygen is. We need it, but very little of it. Too much and we die.
I urge people to become aware of the damage sugar causes especially for the sake of our children. Educate them. Explain to them why that bowl of Frosted Flakes is a bowl full of cellular death in disguise. And the low fat, homogenized, pasteurized milk that is added to these flakes of fire does not douse them. It doubles the heat by added damaged fats and proteins into the DNA-altering soup.
Most of us are eating in our sleep. Awaken by reading Nora's book.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
I've been involved in exercise ever since I became a member of The Charles Atlas Club when I was 10 years old. In 1998, I founded and established Serious Strength on the Upper West Side of NYC. My clients include kids, seniors (and everyone in between), top CEOs, celebrities, bestselling authors, journalists and TV personalities.
Strong Kids Healthy Kids
Euphoria Olive Oil
Gary Taubes: Good Calories Bad Calories
Michael & MaryDan Eades M.D.: Protein Power Lifeplan
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
It is a non-sequitur to equivocate circulating glucose with the appropriate amount of dietary carbohydrate.
Circulating nutrients are often not reflective of the requirements of those nutrients. For example, if you are calcium deficient, you will still have normal circulating calcium levels.
Also, there are over 400 grams of stored carbohydrate in the body…a fact not mentioned in this post.
It is certain that extreme serum glucose excursions can have adverse effects on the body, and thus diets that are high in refined carbohydrate should be avoided. However, it is a false dichotomy to state that, since this is true, then that automatically means that everyone should completely shun carbohydrates in the diet.
And you have not provided any evidence to support your milk comment.
I’m not equivocating. The word ‘equivocate’ means to avoid commitment in order to mislead. That is not what I am doing. I am stating a fact up front and center.
Nor is it absurd for me to indicate that excess circulating glucose above normal levles is a burden on the body. A mere 1/4 of a teaspoon extra is the difference between normal blood sugar and diabetic blood sugar. The line is that fine. Stored glucose within the muscle and liver has little to do with it. If it does and I am missing something, please explain how it is AOK to have greatly elevated circulating blood glucose levels?
Stored carbohydrate has nothing to do with ingesting enough carbohdrate in a single meal to elevate circulating blood glucose beyond normal levels forcing the pancreas to excrete excessive insulin in order to deal with he excess. Our bodies are not designed for this day in and day out. This is the primary cause of type II diabetes.
And glad you agree that too much glucose can be detrimental. This is the point.
And no, it is not a false dichotomy. Dietary glucose is bad news. The less ingested the better.
As for the milk comment, read the book the blog post was written about. You’ll learn how homoginization and pasteurization damage fats and proteins and how damaged fats and proteins wreak havoc on the body.
I might do a blog post about this someday but others have already done so better than I can.
If you have information that indicates otherwise – that these processes do not damage fats and proteins, please provide it.
************************
A mere 1/4 of a teaspoon extra is the difference between normal blood sugar and diabetic blood sugar.
*************************
You’re talking about fasting blood sugar here. There is a big difference between a fasting blood sugar level that is considered normal, and a postprandial blood sugar that is considered normal.
****************
Stored carbohydrate has nothing to do with ingesting enough carbohdrate in a single meal to elevate circulating blood glucose beyond normal levels forcing the pancreas to excrete excessive insulin in order to deal with he excess.
**************
Once again, you are treating fasting blood glucose and postprandial blood glucose as one and the same. There is a range of fasting glucose that is considered normal, and there is a range of postprandial blood glucose that is considered normal.
Also, you need to define “excessive” insulin. Again, there are insulin levels that are considered normal in a fasted state, and insulin levels that are considered normal in a postprandial state.
*********************
And no, it is not a false dichotomy. Dietary glucose is bad news. The less ingested the better.
**********************
It is a false dichotomy because you’ve basically set up your argument as “don’t eat carbs or die”. It is false because you fail to recognize the vast middle ground. You have not provided any scientific evidence that moderate carbohydrate intake is harmful. You discount anecdotal evidence of people who have not done well on a low carb diet, such as a person who posted here earlier, or some of the subjects in Cassandra’s research who didn’t do well. You fail to recognize the variance in people’s responses to dietary treatments.
If carbs are really as bad as you say they are, then I should be fat and diabetic now, because I have a moderate carbohydrate diet and have had one for years. Yet, I’m not….I am quite lean, and I’m not an endurance athlete either. And I know of a large number of people who have had quite good health on moderate carbohydrate intakes. Our obese clients lost an average of 40 pounds in 3 months on a moderate carbohydrate diet, and we treated 400 clients per year. And there is no scientific evidence that moderate carbohydrate intakes have adverse effects (particularly when coupled with a high protein intake, and the carbohydrate is from unrefined sources).
You have not provided any scientific evidence that dietary glucose is in and of itself harmful. There is a big difference between excessive glucose excursions and normal glucose excursions. You have created a non-sequitur by stating that, since excessive glucose excursions can be harmful, then that must mean ANY glucose excursion above fasting must be harmful.
Glucose excursions become excessive on HIGH refined carbohydrate diets, and also if the diet is low in protein (as protein has a powerful effect on glucose regulation). But this is a lot different from a moderate carbohydrate diet with adequate protein, where the carbohydrate comes from unrefined sources.
*******************
As for the milk comment, read the book the blog post was written about.
*******************
I’m interested in scientific research, not books by amateurs or journalists or other people with little to no scientific background. If your argument is scientifically supported, you should be able to provide the scientific evidence for it, and not refer me to a book.
A perfect example is how you always refer people to the Taubes book. But Taubes himself is guilty of confirmation bias and ignoring or leaving out evidence that doesn’t fit with his beliefs. For example, in the third section of the book, he claims that obese people don’t eat more than normal people. But he ignores the VAST amount of doubly-labeled water studies that show that obese people do in fact eat more than lean people, and that obese people severely under-report their food intake.
*****************
If you have information that indicates otherwise – that these processes do not damage fats and proteins, please provide it.
*******************
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. You are the one making the claim….it is your burden to provide the evidence.
No I’m not talking about fasting blood sugar James. I’m talking about whenever you eat
As for the rest of your post, I suggest you read the book. That’s what the blog is actually about – it’s a book reccomendation. If as you say (in your typical belittling fashion you are not interested in reading the book, fine by me. Says a lot about who you are.
If you are really interested in the science on the subject of carbohydrate metabolism, you would not have refused my offer to join the Nutrition and Metabolism Yahoo group. In fact, by declining to join, you show a severe disinterest in science as the people on that group are someof the world’s leading authorities in metabolism.
I think it’s clear that you are only interested in finding things to nay say for the sake of it on my site. How many other sites do you go to and do the same policing on?
You’re clearly obsessed with doing it here to me to the point where you are making a fool of yourself James. It’s really sort of funny that you keep it up. But trolls will be trolls.
You are fond of accusing Gart Taubes of confirmation bias yet at each and every turn you fail to fully support your accusation.
You quote Gary out of context. He does not state that ALL obese eat more than the non obese. He states that obesity is not caused by overeating – some obese people over eat because they are obese. Obeseity, Gary argues, is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. You, like Dr. George Bray, miss this point entirely. In fact I am certain you don’t understand this at all.
For the sake of it, here’s Gary’s response to Bray’s critique of GCBC. It addresses the same issue you misunderstand. As you read, omit Bray’s name and insert Krieger:
“Much of Bray’s critique hinges on his assertion that I believe that obese individuals do not eat more than lean
individuals. He quotes a line from GCBC, but by doing so out of context directs attention away from the critical observation that must be explained.
“Even if it could be established,” I wrote and Bray quotes, “that all obese individuals
eat more than do the lean – which they don’t – that only tells us that eating more is associated with being obese.”
The keyword in the sentence, however, is ‘all’. It must be the case, as discussed in GCBC, that the obese tend to eat more than the lean, because they tend to expend more energy than the lean. This does not mean, however, that all lean individuals expend less energy than all obese individuals of comparable height, sex and bone structure. The distributions of calories consumed overlap, as do the distributions of calories expended. This is the observation that requires explanation.
I do not mention doubly labelled water in this context, because the necessary observations were made with calorimeters nearly a century ago (3).
In this context, Bray’s statement ‘that obese people eat more food energy than do lean people’ is either meaningless – is he indeed claiming that it’s impossible to find lean individuals who naturally expend more energy on a daily basis than obese individuals of comparable height, sex and
bone structure? – or it is indefensible.
The relevant point is how greatly energy expenditure and metabolic rate ‘might
differ between any two individuals of equal weight, or how similar [they] might be among individuals of vastly different weights’ (GCBC, p. 278).
Bray also consistently confuses associations – the obese eat more than the lean; the obese are in positive energy
balance as they fatten – with causes and effects. Do they get fatter because they overeat, as Bray continues to imply, or
do they overeat because they’re getting fatter. The goal of science is to correctly determine causality. In these two competing hypotheses, the causalities are diametrically opposed.”
Define what you mean by a “normal glucose excursion.” Give examples. I have no idea what you are talking about. Educate me.
As for your clients, define moderate carb intake. If they went from eating 400 grams of carbs a day to 150 that is a HUGE reduction in carbohydrate intake. I highly doubt you kept their carbs the same as baseline. What you seem to not realize is that you put theses people on a low carb diet – for them. That was a major factor in why they lost their weight.
As for carbohydrates and ill health, I have written several blogs, with references and links, as to the reasons why carbohydrates from grain sources (and even vegetable sources) are potentially a metabolic nightmare. One need only read those references and links and educate as you have not yet done.
To start you on your path, read this paper which is chock full of scientific references:
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Cereal%20article.pdf
If this interests you, you can then go and do your own homework, as I have, and learn more about how damaging the proteins in grains and legumes are – refined or not.
You haven’t done your homework James. Tsk, tsk. It’s not my job to do it for you.
My job, as I see it, is to alert people to the relevant issues RE health and provide information on the various subjects I see fit to write about.
One more point – it is far better, in my opinion, to read well written books on subjects because often scientific studies err or are misinterpreted even by the researchers themselves. It takes a sharp mind and a keen eye to be able to detect these errors and relay them to the general public.
Authors such as Gary Taubes, Loren Cordain, Michael Eades, Barry Groves, Malcolm Kendrick, Uffe Ravnskov, Jonny Bowden, Diana Schwarzbein, Sally Fallon, Mary Enig, Nina Planck, Robert Atkins, Blake Donaldson, Jeff Volek, and a host of others are such people.
I forgot to address this:
“You discount anecdotal evidence of people who have not done well on a low carb diet, such as a person who posted here earlier, or some of the subjects in Cassandra’s research who didn’t do well. You fail to recognize the variance in people’s responses to dietary treatments.”
Cassandra admitted that ALL of the people in her research placed on a VLCKD responded well – some just didn’t do as well as others. Cheating maybe?
Ultimately ALL body fat is made from glucose. This is basic biomedical chemistry. Additionally, glucagon is required for fat stores to be tapped for energy. Glucagon does not operate in the presence of insulin. If you eat enough carbs to stimulate insulin, glucagon cannot function and body fat does not get burned. (This is straight out of Lehninger’s and Lippencott’s biochem).
Yes – I discount anecdotal evidence as you do. If someone says “I did crappy on a low carb diet.” I obviously have no way of knowing what that person ate. I catch my own clients chowing down on pancakes at the local diner after they told me not days before that they have been perfect on their diet.
People lie. Biochemistry doesn’t.
And I do recognize individual variations in carb requirements. Some people who have spent years relying on carbs for fuel and who are now highly insulin resistant require a lot less dietary carbohydrate to lose fat. Lowering their calories without lowering their crb intake does little to help and often hurts as they invariably eat too little protein.
*************
No I’m not talking about fasting blood sugar James.
**************
You stated, “the normal level of blood sugar for the typical adult is about half a teaspoon or ~2 grams.” That’s a fasting level.
*************
In fact, by declining to join, you show a severe disinterest in science as the people on that group are someof the world’s leading authorities in metabolism.
**************
This is a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion. I asked you to provide references to scientific research supporting your milk comment. You have yet to do this.
Second, your comment is absurd. There are tons of scientific groups and organizations out there. Based on your logic, that must mean you aren’t very interested in science either, since you haven’t joined many of these groups.
**********
I think it’s clear that you are only interested in finding things to nay say for the sake of it on my site.
You’re clearly obsessed with doing it here to me to the point where you are making a fool of yourself James. It’s really sort of funny that you keep it up. But trolls will be trolls.
************
More ad hominems…trying to insult me doesn’t make your position any stronger.
************
He states that obesity is not caused by overeating
**************
And yet neither you nor him have ever been able to explain how the human body can accumulate fat and weight in the absence of an energy surplus…as if fat could be created out of nothing.
*****************
It must be the case, as discussed in GCBC, that the obese tend to eat more than the lean, because they tend to expend more energy than the lean.
*******************
This comment ignores the data indicating a cause/effect relationship between overfeeding and the development of obesity.
For example, in a controlled overfeeding trial, Siervo et al (2008) reported the increase in energy expenditure that resulted from weight gain was insufficient to prevent fat gain. In other words, the increase in energy expenditure was not proportional to the weight gained, which contradicts Taubes’ assertion that obese people eat more simply because they have higher energy expenditures.
Diaz et al (1992) reported similar results in an overfeeding trial.
Deriaz et al (1993) reported that almost all the energy surplus was converted into body weight in an overfeeding trial. By the end of the trial, 60% of the excess calories were still being converted to body weight….again contradicting Taubes’ assertion that obese people eat more because they are obese.
Joosen et al (2005) reported similar results to Deriaz….again indicating that overfeeding leads to weight gain, and not the other way around.
Tataranni et al (2003) reported that baseline energy intake predicted changes in bodyweight in Pima Indians. This contradicts Taubes because this was energy intake at baseline, not after the weight had changed.
Tremblay et al (1992) reported that 66% of excess calories ingested were stored as body tissue during overfeeding. This contradicts Taubes because it shows overfeeding caused the weight gain, not the weight gain causing the overfeeding.
Larson et al (1995) reported that spontaneous overfeeding was not related to body weight, contradicting Taubes’ claim that overweight people eat more because they’re overweight.
Ong et al (2006) reported that dietary energy intake at the age of 4 months predicted childhood weight gain. This contradicts Taubes because the energy intake predicted future weight gain (i.e., children didn’t eat more because they were obese).
All of the data indicates the nature between food intake and obesity is causative.
And this is what I’m talking about when I talk about presenting scientific data and not referring people to books.
********
Define what you mean by a “normal glucose excursion.” Give examples. I have no idea what you are talking about. Educate me.
***********
In healthy individuals, a 2-hour postprandial glucose level is usually < 120 mg/dL.
**********
What you seem to not realize is that you put theses people on a low carb diet – for them. That was a major factor in why they lost their weight.
************
The scientific data does not support this assertion. Reduction in carbohydrate, without a corresponding reduction in energy intake, does not result in weight loss. Second, my 2006 meta-analysis (a paper often quoted by Volek in his professional presentations) showed no relationship between carbohydrate and weight change at non-ketogenic carbohydrate levels.
*************
You haven’t done your homework James.
**************
I read the scientific papers. I publish scientific papers. You quote books by people you deem to be authority figures, without further investigating their claims. For example, I just gave you a number of studies indicating the relationship between energy intake and obesity is causal. I took the time to investigate this. You took Taubes word for it. Who is the one not doing his homework?
********
One more point – it is far better, in my opinion, to read well written books on subjects because often scientific studies err or are misinterpreted even by the researchers themselves
************
The problem with this is that you are relying on someone else’s interpretation of the data. You have no idea if they are giving a complete presentation of the existing data, unless you take the time to investigate for yourself.
This was pretty evident in the discussion over on jpfitness. Cassandra exposed the fact you were going over on the N&M group and getting the answers from other people and repeating those answers verbatim. You had to rely on them rather than relying on yourself and examining the data for yourself and thinking for yourself.
**********
because often scientific studies err or are misinterpreted even by the researchers themselves
***********
If scientific studies can be misinterpreted by the researchers themselves, why would you then rely on someone else’s interpretation of the research? Particularly someone with little or no scientific background?
*********
Cassandra admitted that ALL of the people in her research placed on a VLCKD responded well
************
Cassandra said nothing of the sort. I encourage any bystanders reading this to go over to this thread at jpfitness and you can see verbatim what Cassandra wrote (and it isn’t what Fred is claiming):
forums.jpfitness.com/diet-nutrition-supplementation/39280-fierce-conversations-2-more-important-adequate-protein-carb-reduction.html
In this post here, Cassandra says how most did well, but some did “terribly”:
forums.jpfitness.com/750163-post123.html
*************
Ultimately ALL body fat is made from glucose.
*************
Really? So you’re saying that free fatty acids cannot be used to make fat?
***************
Additionally, glucagon is required for fat stores to be tapped for energy.
******************
No, glucagon is not required. Fat cells can release free fatty acids in the absence of glucagon. Studies by Hagen all the way back in the 1960’s demonstrated this.
**********
Glucagon does not operate in the presence of insulin.
***********
Glucagon certainly does operate in the presence of insulin. It’s not like one switches on and the other switches off.
**********
Yes – I discount anecdotal evidence as you do.
***********
But you’re happy to use it if it supports what you believe, and you’ll discount it if it doesn’t.
****************
f you eat enough carbs to stimulate insulin, glucagon cannot function and body fat does not get burned.
****************
Another erroneous statement. If this was true, someone on a high carbohydrate diet, yet in an energy deficit, would not lose body fat….yet they do.
I composed a very long response to you Jsames and it just vanished and I don’t have time to rewrite it.
As for this:
“Cassandra said nothing of the sort. I encourage any bystanders reading this to go over to this thread at jpfitness and you can see verbatim what Cassandra wrote (and it isn’t what Fred is claiming)”
Cassandra, in a public email on the Nutrition and Metabolism Yahoo group wrote this:
“There were a few subjects we had that just didn’t do as well with a keto diet. This doesn’t mean they didn’t lose weight or fat at all. I’m not sure exactely why this was the case. I was just sharing my experience. n = 1″
So you see James, you should think before you write. ALL of the subjects lost fat – some less than others as is always the case in research.
Cassandra’s statement on the JP forum was said as a gang member wanting to get her kick into the victim. When I sent an email to the NM group asking how this could be that Volek’s lab had some people do terribly on a VLCKD Cassandra was busted. She knee jerk reacted and sent the group a nasty email and within it the truth came out.
She even fooled you James. No one did terribly in her research James. Some just did better than others.
She also misspoke, well lied actually, about me using other peoples words.
“This was pretty evident in the discussion over on jpfitness. Cassandra exposed the fact you were going over on the N&M group and getting the answers from other people and repeating those answers verbatim. You had to rely on them rather than relying on yourself and examining the data for yourself and thinking for yourself.”
Sorry James thought you’d like to believe this it is completely untrue. What was she doing? – Going from web page to webpage and checking to see if I was copying other people’s words word for word? It’s absurd. She once again was just telling another fib to save face because she felt busted for misrepresenting the work done in Dr. Volek’s lab on the JP forum in order to join the gang againt me.
If I have the time I’ll launch into the rest of the nonsense you posted.
For those of you interested in a more in depth understanding of the information I provided on blood sugar, read this web post by Dr. Eades.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/a-spoonful-of-sugar/
“I read the scientific papers. I publish scientific papers. You quote books by people you deem to be authority figures, without further investigating their claims. For example, I just gave you a number of studies indicating the relationship between energy intake and obesity is causal. I took the time to investigate this. You took Taubes word for it. Who is the one not doing his homework?”
I read the papers to James as does Gary and all of the others I have mentioned. In fact, most of the people I mentioned would be your professors. Perhaps this is why you are afraid to join the NMS group? You seem completely disinterested in learning. You seem only interested in proving yourself right. This is the sign of a poor scientist. You should be eager to discover how your positions and thoughts might be wrong. This ability is what led Gary to his conclusions.
I am not a scientist. But I do my best to read as much as I can and learn how my current thoughts on training and nutrition might be wrong. I have made HUGE shifts in my thinking and reccomendations in the past 20 years I’m proud to say.
You’ll need to re-read GCBC because you are missing the entire premise (seemingly on purpose). Start with chapter 17-20. You’re missing the bigger picture.
Yes if you eat more calories than you need you MAY get fat. You may not. You have your head so far buried into scientific papers you’re losing sight of the road ahead. Sciecne is a roadmap to help on a journy of learning and gaining insights. But if you keep looking at the map while on a journey, you’ll probably crash into something. You need to look up, look around and think more deeply James. But you’re obviously young. You’ll learn soon enough.
Is the NMS Yahoo group an invitation-only affair? I would love to join.
Interesting thread. I’m new to your work Mr. Hahn, but based on this thread you seem a whole lot more credible and certainly more likable, than your nemesis Mr. Krieger. Some of us out here have enough common sense to know that what you espouse is reasonable and works for a great number of persons, while carbohydrate-laden diets that others promote have failed for those same individuals. Keep up the good work. I’ll be buying your book this weekend (even though you have no fancy abbreviations after your name)
.
Matt – it’s by invitation only, sorry. You can join the Society (well worth it!) and then ask to be included.
Christopher – Thanks for the praise. James is a smart guy and says a lot that is pro low carb but he has a chip on his shoulder to prove everyone wrong who he feels is full of BS even when he knows deep down they are not. He’ll grow out of it in about 10 years.
Fred,
fruits and vegtables are also carbs and equate to sugar. As you aware the body converts all carbs to glucose. Fruits and vegtables can be just as problematic as a bowl of corn flakes. One orange can drive a healthy person’s fasting insulin levels, 6-10 microunits per milliliter to well over 20 microunits per milliliter at which point the bodies ability to burn fat is reduced by 50%.
Greg
Greg
Fred,
just show Mr. Krieger the research that has been done on the effects of carbs on insulin and the effects on the insulin/glucagon ratio. Mr. Krieger is stuck in the gluco-centric paradigm. Carbs stop the flow of fat out of the fat cell. Insulins first role is not as everyone believes to clear glucose out of the bloodstream, but to block the release of fat out of the fat cells. Insulin produces an enzyme Mcoa, which converts carbs to fat and a high fat diet produces and enzyme cpt-1 which allows the body to release fat from the fat cell. The food we eat is responsible for the types of enzymes we produced.
Greg
Hi Greg – I agree with you on the fruit but it would be hard to eat enough veggies unless they were tubers and root veggies to be harmful. Lots of fiber in them too.
Krieger knows all that stuff. He justs argues because he doesn’t think I know it. So he tries to prove me and other people wrong by hoping we can’t argue and win because we don’t have the intellectual ammo he does.