MOVED TO LIVINLAVIDALOWCARB.COM/BLOG

PLEASE UPDATE YOUR BOOKMARKS TO LIVINLAVIDALOWCARB.COM/BLOG

Friday, January 19, 2007

SC 'Shrinkdown' Is Blatantly Anti-Low-Carb


Kelly Frazier wrote the education materials for "Shrinkdown"

I recently shared with you an initiative that is taking place in my home state of South Carolina to help people lose weight and get healthy. It's called "Shrinkdown" and is sponsored by the local YMCA chapters. In fact, I decided to join this year to see what it was all about.

After the intial weigh-in and a check of the key health statistics a couple of weeks back, participants in the "Shrinkdown" program were given a "Healthy Living Guide" three-ring binder to bring with them to their weekly Friday weigh-ins. Additional materials have been distributed each week and will continue to for the remaining weeks in the program.

But imagine my horror today when I got my new materials and saw on page 3:21 a section entitled "Why Do I Need Carbohydrates?" What the heck is this crappy health information all about and why is it in a packet about "healthy living"?!

When I looked closer for the source of this page, I saw it was from a woman named Kelly Frazier from the Department of Health & Exercise Science at the nearby Furman University in Greenville, SC. She is a member of the American College for Sports Medicine (ACSM) and lectures regularly on diet, health, nutrition, and fitness.

I couldn't help but notice she has a link to more information about the "Vegetarian Lifestyle" on her web site. Hmmm, if she's being fair and balanced, then why not have a resource link to a site about the low-carb lifestyle, Ms. Frazier? You could easily link to blogs by Regina Wilshire, Dr. Michael Eades, and so many more I could go on for days listing.

Nevertheless, in her article about carbohydrates, Frazier wrote that they are absolutely necessary for "energy" and for the added nutrients your body needs to "stay healthy."

She quotes the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy Of Science which recommends a MINIMUM daily carb intake of 130 grams for what they describe as "proper brain function." According to their "Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids" published in September 2002, here's what they say about the percentage of macronutrients people should be eating:

"Adults should get 45 percent to 65 percent of their calories from carbohydrates, 20 percent to 35 percent from fat, and 10 to 35 percent from protein."

Even more disturbing to me was the fact that they actually RECOMMENDED the consumption of "added sugars" for people to consume. Here's what they wrote:

"Added sugars should comprise no more than 25 percent of total calories consumed. Added sugars are those incorporated into foods and beverages during production which usually provide insignificant amounts of vitamins, minerals, or other essential nutrients. Major sources include soft drinks, fruit drinks, pastries, candy, and other sweets."

Let me get this straight. This so-called health organization, which is being quoted by Frazier in the "Shrinkdown" materials, is actually recommending as much as 65 percent of daily caloric intake comes from carbohydrates, including the consumption of junk foods containing sugar and gobs of high fructose corn syrup? Seriously?!

Plus, let's talk about this business of "proper brain function" for a moment. We've seen in studies I have highlighted here at my blog that eating too many carbs which elevates your blood sugar levels can lead to Alzheimer's disease (which incidentally is greatly IMPROVED by a low-carb diet) and poor mental health. Further research is already underway in Scotland on the effect of low-carb on brain health.

But Frazier didn't stop there. She added that "carbohydrates are the preferred fuel of the brain" and that not eating carbs will result in "fatigue, dizziness, irritability, and decreased concentration and cognitive function." This all happens, according to this self-appointed health expert, because "the brain does not have enough fuel to function properly."

This is the kind of garbage nutritional science that is being let loose on all those unsuspecting participants looking to lose weight in the "Shrinkdown" program! UGH! Let's see if we can educate Ms. Frazier and others who believe this nonsense.

First of all, your body doesn't NEED carbs. That's just nonsense and is actually proven by the basic nutritional concept known as gluconeogenesis which I have even discussed in my podcast show recently.

This amazing biological process enables the body to make its own carbs from the protein it consumes. In other words, Ms. Frazier, YOU DON'T NEED CARBS FOR FUEL as you so erroneously claim. What you need to eat to fuel you body with is FAT (even eating the much-vilified saturated fat is VERY healthy for you!) despite the common myth you are simply perpetuating with your ridiculous essay on carbohydrates.

Regarding this business about not eating carbs causing all those symptoms you listed, you have GOT to be joking, right? I've blogged about this previously and I'm beginning to wonder if Ms. Frazier has some of the same retarded beliefs about livin' la vida low-carb as this other so-called health "expert" did!

Frazier turned her attention to the subject of whether carbs will make you fat and said flat out that they will not.

"Contrary to common misconception, carbohydrates are not fattening. Your body needs carbohydrates for energy throughout the day."

Yadda yadda yadda...we've been over this before. You don't NEED carbs. But catch this caveat she included in this paragraph where she backtracks just a bit.

"However, if you eat too many carbohydrates over several days then they can be stored as fat. Excess calories from fat, protein, and alcohol can also be stored as fat."

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Now this is getting REALLY good! :) Frazier says eating "too many" carbs will be stored as fat. What is the definition of "too many?" I think 100g is WAY too many carbs for someone to be eating in one day and yet Ms. Frazier says the minimum should be 130. Could it be deduced that eating 100g carbs daily COULD result in stored fat, hmmm? That would be "too many" in my book.

She tries to save face when she makes the comment about eating too many calories from other sources will also lead to weight gain, but none are as detrimental to your weight and health as carbohydrates. The volumes of science coming out about the damaging impact of carbs on various aspects of health is indeed mindboggling. Stick around my blog a while, Ms. Frazier, and you'll see what I mean!

Frazier then moved her attention squarely on livin' la vida low-carb and how it supposedly helps people lose weight. Here's what she wrote about it:

"Low-carbohydrate diets typically result in rapid weight loss during the first few weeks. Current research suggests that this intial weight loss is due to water loss...excess protein increases urination...which results in rapid water loss."

In a word, Ms. Frazier, WRONG-O! We've heard this exact same thing before from another "expert," but it doesn't add up. A real low-carb expert who worked with the late Dr. Robert C. Atkins in his clinical practice for decades has addressed the "water weight" controversy before--click here to read what Jackie Eberstein has to say. Plus, this study from Temple University last year should put this issue to rest for good.

On the subject of long-term low-carbing, Frazier said it "may result in weight loss," but that it will only happen because of the "restriction of calories, not the restriction of carbohydrates."

Again, the science doesn't support this, including a Canadian study from the early 1990s where twelve sets of male twins were overfed 1000 calories per day purposefully over an 84-day time frame. The researchers wanted to test the theory that it's all about the calories. They should have all gained 24 pounds each, but instead the weight gain varied from 9.5-29 pounds.

But even if livin' la vida low-carb resulted in eating less calories as Frazier so smugly reports, so freakin' what?! If you ask me, I'd rather have the natural calorie-reduction that comes from eating low-carb than having to painstakingly count each and every little calorie I put in my mouth. NO THANK YOU!

Yes, calories DO count, but thank the good Lord YOU don't have to count them on low-carb! :) Only a twisted mind would see eating low-carb for reducing calories as a BAD thing.

Finally, Frazier said low-carb is not for the long-term because it's too restrictive and difficult to maintain while not giving you the proper nutrition.

"A diet high in meat, eggs, and cheese is not balanced...A healthier weight-loss plan incorporate regular physical activity and smaller portions of healthy foods, such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits, lean protein, and healthy fats."

Oh yippee, we get that favorite word of the dietary dunces--BALANCED! Guess what? Low-carb gives me all the balance I need for my health thank you very much! Ms. Frazier has fallen victim (by choice!) to the "meat, eggs, and cheese" myth about livin' la vida low-carb.

NEWSFLASH, Ms. Frazier: Low-carb living DOES incorporate exercise, vegetables, fruits, protein, and fats. You just described this incredible way of eating perfectly. Do yourself a favor, Ms. Frazier! READ THE BOOK! Any of the low-carb books would give you more education about this amazing lifestyle and you might just realize it's not as unhealthy as you think it is.

My concern is all those "Shrinkdown" participants who don't know any better and will take what Ms. Frazier has written in this literature at face value. What a crying shame!

You can e-mail Kelly Frazier about her screwy nutritional views at Kelly.Frazier@furman.edu.

1-21-07 UPDATE: Unfortunately, Kelly Frazier took great offense to my column in response to her materials written for the "Shrinkdown" program regarding carbohydrates. If you read the comments section of this post, then you will also see several interesting responses from Kelly's sisters, too. It's all very interesting, but none of it changes anything about the truth of what I wrote.

Here is Kelly's e-mail to me:

Dear Jimmy,

I must admit that I was very hurt when I read your blog. It caused me a great deal of pain and I couldn't understand why you would write these things. Then I found this post you wrote on your website:

"As anyone who is overweight or obese will tell you, being fat is quite a traumatic thing for many people because it brings on the intense ridicule and scorn of people who may or may not know just how hurtful they are being. The scars from these experiences can be very deep-rooted and cause very real pain to linger on for many years and many times drawing these people into serious depression, loneliness and even suicidal. It breaks my heart to see this happening in a society that is tolerant of virtually every group of people--EXCEPT THE OBESE!

Thankfully, God can reach down through this sea of pain and into the souls of people like this to begin the healing process from within these beautiful people so they can finally deal with their weight problem in earnest and restore the temple of the Holy Spirit, their bodies, to their proper weight and get their life back.

I honestly don't know how people who do not believe in God can deal with these kinds of struggles they face, such as being overweight and all that comes with that, without Him! Jesus Christ is the anchor of my life and I would literally be lost in this dying world and very likely would be obese today without God in my life! I wholeheartedly believe that to be true."

After reading that message, I knew that I had to respond to you. Jimmy, I am also a Christian. I try to carry myself with integrity and show the love of Jesus Christ to all kinds of people. I do not benefit financially from the South Carolina Shrinkdown program. I have prepared the materials on my own personal time over the past three years, sacrificing time from my family. I have spent all of these hours trying to help people, much like you do.

I started to cry when I read about the pain that you have experienced. I am so sorry that you have suffered so much. I realize now why you responded with such hostility and are so passionate about your way of life. My sister was obese growing up and also experienced those same feelings of depression, loneliness, and suicide. I spoke with a Shrinkdown participant last year who told me that she had prayed for God to take her life because she felt so hopeless. When she told me that, my heart broke.

I realize that we do not agree on the fundamentals of human physiology. I am sorry if you felt misled by the program. We definitely do not recommend a low-carbohydrate diet and have not marketed the program in that way.

I understand that low-carbohydrate diets can result in long-term weight loss. I understand that they can provide a solution to many people who struggle with weight loss. After reviewing the current literature and recommendations from worldwide nutrition authorities, however, our sponsors sincerely do not believe that low-carbohydrate diets are the healthiest way of life.

Jimmy, I wish you the best on your weight loss journey and your mission to help others. I apologize for my sisters clogging up your forum. As you can see, we have a very close family.

Best wishes,

Kelly


This was my response to Kelly's e-mail:

Hey Kelly,

THANK YOU so much for your very kind comments in response to my blog post about your beliefs. Let me begin by saying that I definitely meant no harm to you personally in my column. If you and your sisters will go back and read it again closer, then you will see I only addressed the substance of your materials and did not "bash" you personally at any point.

I can appreciate the sacrifice you made to present those materials to the "Shrinkdown" program with no pay. But that doesn't give you the right to share information that is just not true. What about gluconeogenesis? What about the spikes in blood sugar that come from eating over 100g carbs daily? How about those concepts in your materials? There was no mention of them.

One of the biggest challenges I see in the United States today as it relates to helping people overcome their obesity is the inconsistent message they keep receiving from advocates of only one way to lose weight. While you acknowledge livin' la vida low-carb will work for weight loss over the long-term for some people (myself included), why can't we teach that alongside the low-fat, low-calorie, moderation diet that your sisters were preaching to me?

I apologize that you experienced pain from my column, but that was definitely not my intention. I am passionate about what I write about because I've weighed over 400 pounds and want people to know the truth. Won't you join me in the effort to promote not just your way, but many ways to weight loss? Isn't doing something, even if you believe it's not for you, better than having people remain obese? That's why I do what I do.

The overwhelming evidence that is coming out of the scientific community about just how healthy low-carb is for people is difficult to ignore. I am in the best shape of my entire life right now because of this amazing lifestyle that God has helped me stick with for three years now. I could very well have been dead right now if I chose to heed the warnings of people like yourself regarding low-carb.

When I interviewed Dr. Dean Ornish a few months ago, he said that low-carb and low fat advocates need to try to come to a consensus about what is healthy and stop the bickering. That's my point exactly, which is why I have to defend this way of eating whenever it is so blatantly challenged and ridiculed in any public forum.

We do want to help people not just with their physical needs, but also their spiritual ones because they are hurting. That breaks my heart to see people continue to wallow in their hurt and shame of being fat because I KNOW they can overcome it quite possibly through low-carb living. That's my only goal is to help those tens of thousands of people who visit my blog each and every month looking for hope and inspiration. And I plan to give it to them.

Again, I meant no harm to you or your family. I appreciate your willingness to share from your heart and hope you understand why I had to do what I did. God bless you and your family as you continue to shine for Jesus in all that you do. Take care and please don't hesistate to contact me anytime if you have any questions or concerns.

Jimmy


I don't think I exhibited any "hostility" at any point and was nothing but cordial to both Kelly and her sisters. Sometimes in my zest for challenging those who oppose this amazingly healthy low-carb life, my passion overflows and people mistake my authoritative style as being overly brash. I can't help it and don't plan to change. If we are going to make a difference, then truth needs to be spoken loud and clear.

THANK YOU, Kelly, for writing to me about this. I appreciate your words and hope that you understand why I was concerned about the materials you submitted to the "Shrinkdown" program. I encourage you to click on some of those links I provided to see exactly where I am coming from because it's not just my opinion. The facts are what they are and I lay them out there for everyone to see.

Like I said, what's the harm in promoting VARIOUS ways to getting healthy, hmmmm?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

43 Comments:

Blogger renegadediabetic said...

Funny thing, my brain seems to work better on low carb than it did on high carb. I used to suffer from "brain fog" and have trouble following things. Now my mind is much clearer. That's on less than half their recommended carb level.

1/19/2007 10:04 PM  
Blogger Calianna said...

If Ms Frazier is a vegetarian, then she's obviously begrudgingly accepting the idea that most people (sigh) still eat meat. She couldn't be in the position she's in, writing nutrition pages for a statewide program, and giving talks on diet and nutrition, without at least acknowleging that fact.

But even if she's not (it's not really clear from her page if she is or not - the link to the vegetarian information doesn't even work) coming from a standard nutrition education, it's highly unlikely that she'd ever consider a truly low carb diet to be either safe or sane. Of course someone who is a vegetarian isn't likely to ever go *looking* for information that would support a low carb lifestyle, find out what it really means to eat low carb, or ever admit that some people need to eat that way to be healthy.

I'm with you, renegade! I feel so much better on low carb, able to think more clearly, function more clearly, more energy, etc. All that those carbs ever did for me was to make me sluggish, spark cravings for more and more food, and cause me to gain weight.

1/20/2007 12:33 AM  
Blogger Science4u1959 said...

Sigh. More scientifically completely untenable hogwash from yet another moron. Dang, 2007 just started and already I am running out of Darwin Awards!

1/20/2007 3:59 AM  
Blogger Jeff Hamlin said...

"Meat, eggs, and cheese" is not a myth about low-carb. It might be a myth about Atkins, but not all LC plans. ;)

Agreed about exercise, though!

1/20/2007 2:48 PM  
Blogger Hellistile said...

The fact that she is absolutely clueless boggles my mind. Doesn't she know that your liver can create up to 200 grams of carbs per day, if necessary, from other sources without eating crap that spikes your blood sugars?

Mailing her would prove fruitless. If she was smart she'd know all that.

1/20/2007 6:45 PM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

Yes, but hellistle, you can't underestimate the message that can be sent to people like this if enough of us stand up to the mindless nutritional garbage they keep spreading to those who don't know any better themselves. I will NEVER stop challenging them and neither should anyone else who cares about this issue.

1/21/2007 2:21 PM  
Blogger Paula said...

To all commenters on this blog,
this is another person (Kelly) you are making comments about and they will read them. Kelly is a human being, just like you, with feelings. She is a loving woman with a beautiful daughter and a great husband. She is very fit (a size 4 or 6) and vibrant. I know that because I can't keep up with her now and I ran cross country and track for 6 years. She is passionate about trying to help people and she's my sister. There's no need to bash her into the ground because you disagree with her. Please think about what you're typing before you type it and decide how you would feel if someone said that to you. No one knows exactly how the human body works except for God, so we're all in this together. Kindness is a great start to any discussion.

1/21/2007 8:40 PM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

THANK YOU for your comments, Paula. But nobody here is advocating others to "bash Kelly into the ground." Go back and read my EXACT words in this post and you'll realize my problem has very little to do with her and everything to do with her erroneous beliefs about carbohydrates.

If your sister is going to put herself out there as an authority on health and nutrition in front of the tens of thousands of people participating in the "Shrinkdown" program in South Carolina, then she needs to make sure the information she is providing is 100% accurate. The fact is it is not.

That's not my opinion, it's the truth as I have clearly outlined with scientific backing in my column. You can't argue with the research and the science, so Kelly should have done her homework before writing such jibberish.

If you read my blog for any length of time, you will quickly realize that I don't put up with so-called experts spreading falsehoods to those who don't know better themselves. That's why so many of us have been overweight or obese our entire lives.

I'm sure Kelly is indeed all of those wonderful things you said about her and I wouldn't think of bringing harm to her or her family. Even still, the fact that she is "very fit and vibrant" does not excuse her from giving people the latest information.

As a fellow Christian, I too believe there are complexities about the human body which only God knows. But we have some very gifted individuals in the world of research who are uncovering some amazing things about low-carb living that unfortunately people like your sister have just plain ignored. Is that right? I don't think so.

Finally, I'm all for being kind and respectful to people which I take great pains to do in this forum. But kindness is not defined as rolling over and playing like everything is okay when someone slams the way of eating that has provided me my miracle weight loss and vastly improved health.

For that, I make NO apologies for defending. THANK YOU again for sharing your concerns. I certainly hope my column has opened Kelly's eyes to another point of view worth considering as she seeks to educate others on diet and health.

Take care Paula! I appreciate your courage in sharing your feedback with me.

1/21/2007 9:00 PM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

Check your resources.............and do your homework before you believe anything in this article. The so called Ms. Frazier is a Mrs. Frazier and is my sister. For starters she is not a vegetarian and is not a complete believer in vegetarianism as there are some nutrients found in meat that are hard to get if you don't eat it. I'm the vegetarian in the family and one of the examples that she uses in her program which is based on the program developed my the mayo clinic. I myself don't believe that everyone is able to be a vegetarian and certainly don't believe in a high carbohydrate diet. The key is moderation and maybe if you listen you might understand these things. You need protein, fats, and carbohydrates in your diet, but nobody can seem to agree how much of each you need. You can't deny, however that excess protein in the body is stored as fat as protein only has one function in the body, which is to repair cells. If you also look at how protein is metabolized in the body you will also see that it doesn't even have the ability to absorb large quantites of protein at one time. So the answer may not be high carb, but is sure isn't high protein instead. It seems that the only true thing is moderation. I think it also appropriate to say once again that I am one of the examples used in my sister's program. I used to weight 225lbs. and at 5'6" that is definately a healthy weight. Now about 10 years later I maintained a healthy weight of 145lbs. which is considered healthy for someone of of my height and body type (yes, not everyone can be 125lbs., at 138lbs. I was considered underweight by my doctor). In the height of the low-carb craze I admit to trying it vegetarian style. In two days, I had no energy to make it threw my day, I was constipated from having eaten very little fiber (a problem as most protein rich low carb food has very little of it), and could not even complete a 1 mile run (I was used to running at least 3 miles every other day at that point). And in just 2 weeks, I had gained 10 lbs.

Currently I'm the manager of a health food store (when I started to lose weight I worked at a retail clothing store) where when Dr. Atkins was alive the lowcarb diet was very popular. One of my co-workers was tried the atkins diet for 6 months sticking to it religiously. He lost 15lbs. still tipping the scale at 335lbs. This didn't last for very long. Two years later he now weight 355lbs. and is physically obese. Another of my co-workers was 325lbs. at his worst and had also tried the low carb diet he lost 20lbs. after 2 months and then had to have a colonoscapy to have the waste removed from his intestines. 2 years later he tried a new concept which is now being called the original fad diet (i.e. a balanced diet) and now weight a healthy 165lbs. which is appropriate for his 5'10" frame. He eats more regularly, smaller portions, exercises regularly, and doesn't gorge himself on junk food anymore. He has kept this off of 9 months now and everyone is proud of him. In my business I have seen and met at least 100 people who have been on either a low carb or the atkins diet, I have yet to meet anyone who has met an ideal weight (even the guy on the food network would still be considered overweight) and have kept it over for any amount of time, even if they stick to there diet religiously. I have been there, and done that and this low-carb stuff is just another fad like the low fat diets of the early 90's. It all uncovers information that was previously unknown, but none of them are the perfect recipe for weight loss or proper health.

Check out this website for information of people that have kept off weight for at least 2 years, it’s called the National Weight Control Registry. http://www.nwcr.ws/. It has information about people like me who follow no real diet (I’m a vegetarian for ethical reasons, not health reasons) and have lost weight and kept it off for years. I also has the findings of several studies that they have conducted about activity levels and eating habits and patterns, including some that have to do about how you feel about yourself. See what people are really doing. Also, I have to end on the note, what was this guy doing at Greater Greenville Shrinkdown if his low carb diet worked so well?

1/21/2007 9:06 PM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

Hey Julie Anne, it's so nice of another one of Kelly's sisters paying a visit to my blog. THANKS for dropping by. :)

Regarding your concerns, I never said Kelly was a vegetarian. But it is rather odd that she would have a link on her web site about "The Vegetarian Lifestyle" and not have one for "The Low-Carb Lifestyle." Isn't that odd to you?

What would be considered "moderate" carb intake, hmmm? According to your sister, it looks like 130 is the BARE minimum, but that's WAY TOO MANY for people who are carb intolerant and/or trying to lose weight and get healthy on the low-carb lifestyle.

As I stated in my column, you don't NEED carbs and I've explained the process of gluconeogenesis. Ask Kelly to explain it to you because she had to have learned about it in her studies. It's a very basic metabolic process that nutritionists and dietitians conveniently forget about when they hurl misinformation about low-carb.

CONGRATULATIONS on your weight loss. You have exhibited exactly what I talk about often here at my blog: find what works for you, follow that plan exactly and then keep doing it for the rest of your life. This is something many do not have the willingness to do for whatever reason.

There are many vegetarian low-carbers out there, so your story about the poor experience you had on it is not relevant because obviously you didn't read a book about how to get adequate amounts of fiber and other nutrients while eating this way. Dr. Atkins and others explain it VERY well in their low-carb books.

The truth is many people have successfully done low-carb both with and without meat, your co-worker notwithstanding (again, did that person read the book?). You are simply spreading more of the radical vegan propaganda of groups like PETA and PCRM that has no foundation in the truth. NONE!

As of January 1, 2007, I have been on the Atkins diet for three years and lost a total of 190 pounds. Not bad for some "fad diet," eh? This may surprise you, but I AM A PART OF THE NATIONAL WEIGHT CONTROL REGISTRY!!! I have chronicled their bias against livin' la vida low-carb, too!

As for your snide comment at the end of your remarks about why I joined the "Shrinkdown" (I joined the one in Spartanburg, not Greenville, by the way), I explained in my column (which you OBVIOUSLY didn't read!) that I wanted to see what it was all about because I was afraid there was nutritional garbage being spread like what your sister submittted. My suspicions have now been confirmed.

I'd say losing 190 pounds on the low-carb lifestyle and keeping it off for as long as I have qualifies it as a viable option, don't ya think, Julie Anne?

THANKS again for your comments, but make sure you actually read my blog the next time you come. Send Kelly my best regards. Take care!

1/21/2007 9:41 PM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

I find it only too appropriate to provide you with some scientific information about breakdown of glycogen in the body other wise known as gluconeogenesis. This is neither a biased nor a weight related information source out of Oregon State University, just people searching for the truth.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb450/fall2006/lecture/glycogenoutline.html

My apologies for some of the grammatical mistakes in my comments, due to my furious typing. This is a topic I deal with everyday and have for several years now. All I want is the truth not promises, I hope you understand this. And, yes, I did read your blog.

1/21/2007 10:28 PM  
Blogger Paula said...

Jimmy,
I was reading thru your postings and couldn't find the long e-mail Kelly sent with her defenses for the Shrinkdown Program. Are you planning on posting that as well? It seems only fair to give people both sides of the story.

1/22/2007 1:33 AM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

THANKS, Paula! But I have not kept anything out of this story. If you will go back to this exact same post where you comment at the bottom of the article you will see an update where I include Kelly's e-mail to me.

She has since sent me another much lengthier response to her specific concerns over low-carb which will take me some time to respond to. But I have not concealed any of her responses or those of you and your other sister.

My regular readers will readily tell you how fair I am to share all sides of an issue, even if they are different from what I believe. That's where true learning begins for everyone involved.

THANKS again for sharing your voice!

1/22/2007 1:49 AM  
Blogger Sue said...

"I find it only too appropriate to provide you with some scientific information about breakdown of glycogen in the body other wise known as gluconeogenesis".
Julie Ann the breakdown of glycogen in the body is not gluconeogenesis.
Gluconeogenesis is the biosynthesis of new glucose, i.e. not glucose from glycogen.

1/22/2007 5:45 AM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

If you had actually read the link that I had sent you, you would know that Gluconeogenesis is the scientific name for the breakdown glycogen in the body. Maybe you should go back and read it again.

1/22/2007 12:35 PM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/22/2007 1:01 PM  
Blogger Sue said...

Excess glucose is converted in the liver to a storage form called glycogen for later use. Glycogen is also stored in the muscles. If glucose blood levels drop and no further fuel is supplied the glycogen is converted back into glucose and returned to the bloodstream. This process is called glycogenolysis, the "breakdown of glycogen". The break down of glucose for energy is glycolysis. Production of "new" glucose from proteins is called gluconeogenesis.
Julie Ann those are the correct terms.

1/22/2007 4:14 PM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

Gluconeogenesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Gluconeogenesis is the generation of glucose from non-sugar carbon substrates like pyruvate, lactate, glycerol, and amino acids (primarily alanine and glutamine).

The vast majority of gluconeogenesis takes place in the liver and, to a smaller extent, in the cortex of kidney. This process occurs during periods of fasting, starvation, or intense exercise and is highly endergonic.

Contents [hide]
1 Entering the pathway
2 Pathway
3 Regulation
4 External links



[edit] Entering the pathway
Many 3- and 4-carbon substrates can enter the gluconeogenesis pathway. Lactate from anaerobic respiration in skeletal muscle is easily converted to pyruvate in the liver cells; this happens as part of the Cori cycle. However, the first designated substrate in the gluconeogenic pathway is pyruvate.

Oxaloacetate (an intermediate in the citric acid cycle) can also be used for gluconeogenesis. Amino acids, after their amino group has been removed, feeds into parts of the citric acid cycle, and can thus generate glucose in this pathway.

Most fatty acids cannot be turned into glucose unless the glyoxylate cycle is used, the exception being odd-chain fatty acids, which can yield propionyl CoA, a precursor for succinyl CoA. Fatty acids are regularly broken down into the two-carbon acetyl CoA, which becomes degraded in the citric acid cycle. In contrast, glycerol, which is a part of all triacylglycerols, can be used in gluconeogenesis.


[edit] Pathway
Gluconeogenesis begins with the formation of oxaloacetate through carboxylation of pyruvate at the expense of one molecule of ATP, but is inhibited in the presence of high levels of ADP. This reaction is catalyzed by pyruvate carboxylase.
Oxaloacetate is then decarboxylated and simultaneously phosphorylated by phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase to produce phosphoenolpyruvate. One molecule of GTP is hydrolyzed to GDP in the course of this reaction. Both reactions take place in mitochondria. Oxaloacetate has to be transformed into malate in order to be transported out of the mitochondria.
Typically, the last step of gluconeogenesis is the formation of glucose-6-phosphate from fructose-6-phosphate by phosphoglucose isomerase. Free glucose is not generated automatically because glucose, unlike glucose-6-phosphate, tends to freely diffuse out of the cell. The reaction of actual glucose formation is carried out in the lumen of the endoplasmic reticulum. Here, glucose-6-phosphate is hydrolyzed by glucose-6-phosphatase, a regulated membrane-bound enzyme, to produce glucose. Glucose is then shuttled into cytosol by glucose transporters located in the membrane of the endoplasmic reticulum.

[edit] Regulation
Gluconeogenesis cannot be considered to be a reverse process of glycolysis, as the three irreversible steps in glycolysis are bypassed in gluconeogenesis. This is done to ensure that glycolysis and gluconeogenesis do not operate at the same time in the cell, making it a futile cycle. Therefore, it is reciprocal regulated between glycolysis and gluconeogenesis. Many regulations, which inhibit glycolysis, will activate gluconeogenesis in reverse.

Glucose-6-phosphate regulates the enzyme glucose-6-phosphoratase in the lumen of ER by promoting its activity. On the contrary, its accumulation will feed-back inhibit hexokinase in glycolysis. Once again, it follows the principle of reciprocal regulation.

The majority of the enzymes responsible for gluconeogenesis are found in the cytoplasm; the exception is pyruvate carboxylase, which is located in the mitochondria. The rate of gluconeogenesis is ultimately controlled by the action of a key enzyme fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase, which also regulated through signal tranduction by cAMP and its phosphorylation.

Most factors that regulate the activity of the gluconeogenesis pathway do so by inhibiting the activity of key enzymes. However, both acetyl CoA and citrate activate gluconeogenesis enzymes (pyruvate carboxylase and fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase, respectively). Notably, AcCoA and citrate also play inhibitory roles in pyruvate kinase in glycolysis.

1/22/2007 5:37 PM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

We are talking in respect to low carb diets, correct? Here's more info. What your talking about it gluconeogenesis in respect to a normal carb eating person, see previous comments. Now READ this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_carb_diet

Ketosis and Insulin Synthesis: What is Normal?
At the heart of the debate about most low carbohydrate diets are fundamental questions about what is a "normal" diet and how the human body is designed to operate. These questions can be summarized as follows. Nutritive carbohydrates (starches and sugars) in the diet tend to break down very easily into glucose in the bloodstream (blood sugar) when consumed. Glucose in the blood is used by the cells in the body for energy for their basic function. Excessive amounts of glucose in the blood are toxic to the human body (the reason diabetes causes such serious health problems). In general, unless a meal is very low in starches and sugars the level of glucose will tend to rise to potentially dangerous levels. When this occurs, the pancreas automatically produces insulin to cause the liver to convert glucose into glycogen (glycogenesis) and triglycerides (which can become body fat), thus reducing the blood sugars to safe levels. Diets with a high starch/sugar content, therefore, cause sharp spikes in insulin production. As such the blood sugar levels are highly variable with every meal.
By contrast, if the diet is very low in starches and sugars (low-carbohydrate diets) the blood sugar level can fall so low that there is insufficient glucose to fuel the cells in the body. This state causes the pancreas to produce glucagon. Glucagon causes the conversion of stored glycogen to glucose and, once the glycogen stores are exhausted, causes the liver to synthesize ketones (ketosis) and glucose (gluconeogenesis) from fats and proteins. Most cells in the body can use ketones for energy instead of glucose and, since ketones are easier to produce, only a small amount of glucose is created (in other words, ketosis is the more significant process in this case). Because diets low in starches and sugars do not tend to directly affect blood sugar levels significantly, meals tend to have little direct affect on insulin levels (and so such diets tend to discourage insulin production in general).
The diets of most people in modern, so-called western nations, especially the United States contain significant amounts of starches (and, frequently, significant amounts of sugars). As such, the metabolisms of most westerners tend to operate outside of ketosis and tend to involve significant insulin production. This has been regarded by medical science in the last century as being "normal." Ketosis has generally been regarded as a dangerous (potentially life-threatening) state which unnecessarily stresses the liver and causes destruction of muscle tissues. The view that has been developed is that getting calories more from protein than carbohydrates causes liver damage and that getting calories more from fats than carbohydrates causes heart disease. This view is still the view of the majority in the medical and nutritional science communities.
Most advocates of low-carbohydrate diets (specifically those that recommend diets similar to the Atkins Diet) argue that this metabolic state (using primarily blood glucose for energy) is not normal at all and that the human body is, in fact, designed to function primarily in ketosis. They argue that high insulin levels can, in fact, cause many health problems, most significantly, fat storage and weight gain. They argue that the purported dangers of ketosis are unsubstantiated (some of the arguments against ketosis result from confusion between ketosis and ketoacidosis which is a related but very different process). They also argue that fat in the diet only contributes to heart disease in the presence of high insulin levels and that if the diet is instead adjusted to induce ketosis, fat and cholesterol in the diet are not a major concern (although most do not advocate unrestricted fat intake and do advocate avoiding trans fat). Further, whereas insulin in the bloodstream causes storage of calories, when the body is in ketosis, excess ketones (which contain excess calories) are excreted in the urine and the breath. Many argue, on this basis, that the ketosis offers a so-called metabolic advantage in that the body automatically eliminates calories that it does not need even with a high-calorie diet (this argument has not yet been explicitly demonstrated by any clinical studies).
This debate is on-going and no general consensus exists at this time

And now it rests. Julie Anne over and out and not willing to fight about this anymore.

1/22/2007 5:53 PM  
Blogger Sue said...

Julie Ann, after that long spiel what are you trying to say? That low-carb diets are dangerous and I should ignore all the favourable research regarding low carb? Or should I believe the garbage that is been spewed forth from the heart foundation and diabetes association?

1/23/2007 12:56 AM  
Blogger Jeff Hamlin said...

Paula and Julie Anne,

Cry me a river! I'm a Christian myself, but I don't expect everyone to have all these nice fuzzy feelings about me and agree with every little thing I say. Being a Christian does NOT exempt you from being wrong, because we are still human and are therefore imperfect. We are to strive for what God wants in our lives.

Lies are lies, and your sister is lying about low carb being unhealthy. If that bothers you, too bad! Besides, Jimmy was very nice about it in his article. He's also been gracious to you despite your false accusations.

1/23/2007 2:26 PM  
Blogger Sue said...

I don't think Kelly is lying about low carb being unhealthy. I think she genuinely thinks its unhealthy because she hasn't researched it herself but relied on second-hand information as being gospel. Also, I don't think the sponsors of the Shrinkdown program would have endorsed low-carb.

1/23/2007 6:50 PM  
Blogger Sue said...

Spartanburg Regional Healthcare centre, are one of the sponsors I think and they don't agree with low-carb:
http://www.srhs.com/default.aspx?pageid=184

1/23/2007 6:58 PM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

Yes, I do think that considering the research that is being done by biochemists (not anyone trying to endorse anything) it does look as if low-carb diets are dangerous long term. Please refer to my previous comments. If you go into some of the link I pasted above your can research their finding in more detail.
I may not be a health practitioner, however, as I previously stated, I am the manager of a health food store. About 2-4 years ago when Atkins was still alive, we had a lot of people interested in the low-carb diet in serveral forms. I have seen people get messed up on it badly. There were instances more than in my above comments. The brother of one of my co-workers had a heart attack at age 36. A nice lady who is a customer (name will be withheld for privacy reasons) had to go to emergency because she passed out in diabetic shock. People I've talked to had to had the stones that there kidneys dropped surgically removed. Constipation is the least of there problems. I could talk about this for hours.

From this I do have to say that no person in there right mind would ever even try the low-carb diet. And no practitioner worth anything would recommend it, unless there was something in it for them. There are other ways to "diet" than go on a low-carb diet. I'm am very proud of my sister for standing up for what she believes in. There certainly are pages of reasons why they don't endorse any form of fad diets from low-carb on. They are going on the science of what makes the body work best, and concentrating on long term health, not get skinny fast.

1/24/2007 9:41 AM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

While Julie Anne bemoans that low-carb is not good over the long-term just because it is not accepted by the medical establishment of modern times, guess where she gets her information about nutrition from? Can you say Wikipedia?!

Look at the "cut and paste" comment posted by Julie Anne at my podcast show about gluconeogenesis. Classic, Julie Anne!

1/24/2007 10:27 AM  
Blogger Sue said...

Julie Ann you may be a manager of a health-food store but you know nothing about nutrition. More than half the products in a health-food store are rubbish.
Atleast your sister is open to discussion and is willing to look at the research.

1/24/2007 4:51 PM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

I guess we forgot to establish some things.

Sue, are you a nutritionist?
Jimmy, are you a nutritionist?
Is anyone who posted something on this blog a nutritionist or any form of health practioner?

I also forgot to mention, since your so fond of health food stores, that we happen to have an in-store nutritionist who has a Master's Degree in Nutrition Science from The University of Bridgeport, CT. Pretty good for a health food store, eh. Have anything like that down in Australia? We sell 80% FOOD.

And since we're all lying here, I forgot that I'm the only one who's been blogging any non-biased proof on the science on the low-carb diets via cut and paste method (i.e. not written by me, written by either a health practioner or biochemist). Check out the links if you think I'm lying, I provided them.

And thus I offer you a challenge, PROVE IT.

If the low-carb diet is so healthy for you, is not dangerous, and deserves to be on the agenda of every nutritionist in the world, then you should have no problem offering scientific proof that this exsists. I'm not talking about claim, I'm talking about scientific evidence and proofs that is non-biased (meaning the people don't either endorse nor de-bunk any diets). This means NO low-carb or diet websites (Atkins.com or e-diets.com) which are obviously biased, nor anybody on there payrolls. And if you would be so kind to provide the links or bibliographical, as appropriate, on where the info came from. I did.

Since we have the established that the only practioner here is my sister, then the info cannot be written or altered by you.

Provide it in abundance, and we'll go away and admit defeat.

1/24/2007 8:50 PM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

Frankly, Julie Anne, I'm not interested in a peeing match with you about who's right or wrong. Let's just say that I am living proof of the lifechanging impact the low-carb lifestyle provides.

While that experience is merely anectdotal, it cannot be ignored that I lost 200 pounds and kept it off while improving every aspect of my health in the process.

As for your scientific proof of my claims about low-carb, did you even read any of the links I provided in my columns? Those are LOADED with studies, but here are some more for you to check out:

- Bone loss comes from calorie-restriction
- Long-term low-carb heart health concerns moot
- Protein is power food for weight loss
- Gene shows metabolic advantage of Atkins
- Low-carb reverses Alzheimer's disease
- Low-carb improves cholesterol levels

Do I need to keep providing examples because there's plenty more science available, Julie Anne? All of those links gives you the full details and corresponding evidence as printed in some of the world's finest medical journals. I rest my case.

I don't want you to "go away and admit defeat," Julie Anne. I simply want you to acknowledge the research that already exists and make sure people like your sister Kelly are giving people the most up-to-date information available.

Staying engaged in the conversation is much more beneficial to everyone involved than merely deciding to "cut and run." I hope you stick around and learn a thing or two about why we believe the way we do. It's SOLID science-based nutrition, not just some passing fad as you believe.

THANKS for your comments!

1/24/2007 10:23 PM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

Then will you acknowledge my own weight loss sucess? I know how it feels, I've been there, going back is my nightmare and it's been at least 9 years. However, I'm not posting blogs, de-bunking practitioners.

Let's review:
Here are some of your words

crappy health information

This is the kind of garbage nutritional science that is being let loose on all those unsuspecting participants looking to lose weight in the "Shrinkdown" program! UGH! Let's see if we can educate Ms. Frazier and others who believe this nonsense.

Yadda yadda yadda

I think 100g is WAY too many carbs

Frazier so smugly reports, so freakin' what?

1/24/2007 11:00 PM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

Julie Anne, my readers know my philosophy when it comes to weight loss:

1. Make up your mind to do it.
2. Find what works for you.
3. Follow that plan exactly.
4. Keep doing that forever.

If you can do a low-fat/low-calorie vegetarian diet and keep your weight off, then I am the first to applaud you and give you the credit you so aptly deserve.

All I request is the same kind courtesy towards me and my lifestyle choice for weight and health management.

The reason you don't need a blog is because the nutritional establishment already agrees with your health choices. But they don't give mine ANY credence, so I must defend it.

If it's what I do for the remainder of my life, then I will serve as an example of how low-carb can and will bring positive changes for people so that others can be encouraged, educated, and inspired about this greatly maligned healthy nutritional approach.

THANK YOU again for engaging in the debate of ideas.

1/24/2007 11:41 PM  
Blogger Sue said...

Julie Ann - I didn't say I was a nutritionist (and I'm not). I said you know nothing about nutrition perhaps out of anger because your attitude is so infuriating!
I'm just a person that is very interested in health issues and disease prevention and cure. So I like to read and what I've read for the past 3 years is all favourable in regards to low-carb. My dad has diabetes and the diabetes association's recommendations for the number of servings of carbohydrates are just unbelievable. Low-carb is the best approach for diabetes because its the sugar that is the problem. The Diabetes Association says that it is a myth that diabetes is caused by sugar. This is the association that is advising diabetics!!!

I acknowledge that some people can lose weight on low-fat, high-carb vegetarian and some of us can't.

1/25/2007 4:13 AM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/25/2007 8:43 AM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

Bone loss comes from calorie-restriction-this one doesn’t address low carb diets, it’s about exercise and bone loss (you have to read the initial study for that)
- Long-term low-carb heart health concerns moot-
Originial study
Low-Carbohydrate-Diet Score and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women
Thomas L. Halton, Sc.D., Walter C. Willett, M.D., Dr.P.H., Simin Liu, M.D., Sc.D., JoAnn E. Manson, M.D., Dr.P.H., Christine M. Albert, M.D., M.P.H., Kathryn Rexrode, M.D., and Frank B. Hu, M.D., Ph.D.






























ABSTRACT
Background Low-carbohydrate diets have been advocated for weight loss and to prevent obesity, but the long-term safety of these diets has not been determined.
Methods We evaluated data on 82,802 women in the Nurses' Health Study who had completed a validated food-frequency questionnaire. Data from the questionnaire were used to calculate a low-carbohydrate-diet score, which was based on the percentage of energy as carbohydrate, fat, and protein (a higher score reflects a higher intake of fat and protein and a lower intake of carbohydrate). The association between the low-carbohydrate-diet score and the risk of coronary heart disease was examined.
Results During 20 years of follow-up, we documented 1994 new cases of coronary heart disease. After multivariate adjustment, the relative risk of coronary heart disease comparing highest and lowest deciles of the low-carbohydrate-diet score was 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.18; P for trend=0.19). The relative risk comparing highest and lowest deciles of a low-carbohydrate-diet score on the basis of the percentage of energy from carbohydrate, animal protein, and animal fat was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.19; P for trend=0.52), whereas the relative risk on the basis of the percentage of energy from intake of carbohydrates, vegetable protein, and vegetable fat was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.88; P for trend=0.002). A higher glycemic load was strongly associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (relative risk comparing highest and lowest deciles, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.15 to 3.15; P for trend=0.003).
Conclusions Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrate and higher in protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease in women. When vegetable sources of fat and protein are chosen, these diets may moderately reduce the risk of coronary heart disease

- Protein is power food for weight loss
From study: Batterham cautioned, however, that large, long-term clinical trials are required before any particular diet could be recommended. She also noted that such a diet would not resemble the popular Atkins diet, which is typically high in both saturated fat and protein.

- Gene shows metabolic advantage of Atkins-this study was done on fruit flies(is this a joke, right?)
- Low-carb reverses Alzheimer's disease-this was done on Parkinson's disease patients (do you have Parkinson’s disease?)
- Low-carb improves cholesterol levels- this is true

1/25/2007 9:17 AM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

The reason you don't need a blog is because the nutritional establishment already agrees with your health choices.

Correct, which is why you shouldn't be picking on practitioners who recommend it.

Feel free not to post my last comments, I do realize you do this for a living.

1/25/2007 9:35 AM  
Blogger renegadediabetic said...

Julie Anne stated that no one in their right mind would even ever try a low carb diet. I tried the low-fat, low calorie, "balanced" diet for several years based on the current dietary dogma. I only got fatter and fatter and ended up diabetic. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. By that definition, I was "insane." I stubbornly clung to the low fat dogma even though my wife repeatedly pointed out that it wasn't working for me. I thought I could make it work with more determination & will power. Now I have regained my sanity and my health is improving. I ask how anyone in their right mind could stick with a dietary approach that repeatedly fails, regardless of what it is.

1/25/2007 9:40 AM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

yes, we have already established that the low-carb diet is a valid way to lose weight. However, we have yet to establish that is nutritional sound and safe long term. The truth is nobody knows this yet. There is however, evidence that moderation of carb, fat, and protein is safe long term.

Life is more than weight loss.

1/25/2007 10:59 AM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

Julie Anne, I will only repeat this one more time because I've already shown you MANY health benefits I have highlightd at my blog.

But here's one of the most damning against your theory that low-carb is only good for weight loss, but not improving health:

- Long-term heart health issues unfounded

This is a Harvard research study with tens of thousands of people involved that shows heart disease risk factors are not worsened when you consume a low-carb diet. READ THE STUDY FOR YOURSELF!

What I do here is take these studies that come out and make them easier to understand for the general public. If you don't like the way I write my recap of these studies, then get your own blog. :)

I encourage you to go back through my old posts of the more than 1,500 columns I have written at my blog and get some perspective on why I am here doing what I am doing.

I'm not going away because there are too many people in this world who are hurting and want to find some sense of hope that there's more to life than living in the body of an obese person with aches and pains that run much deeper than physical ones.

Again, THANK YOU Julie Anne for your engaging comments. I really appreciate your comments because it adds value to the conversation. I'm sorry you do not agree with the low-carb philosophy which is rooted deep in nutritional science showing incredible health improvements and weight loss.

Keep reading my blog in 2007 when some pretty major research studies come out in FAVOR of eating MORE saturated fat for the sake of your health. It'll blow your mind, so stay tuned.

I'll leave the conversation in the hands of my readers from here, but THANK YOU again for the debate. It's been fun. :)

1/25/2007 11:20 AM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

I just want to leave you with one comment. We have proved that there is a case for validating each diet here. However, there still are some questions without answers. Therefore, I issue you a challenge. Tell me about nutritients. I mean things like beta-carotene, thaimin, riboflavin, naicin, b12, folic acid, potassium, magnesium, calcium. Tell me about bioflavanoids and phytochemicals and enzymes. This is nutrition. If the low-carb diet is to survive then answer these questions.

Does a low-carb diet promote nutrient deficiencies?
What is fiber, why do I need it, and where does it come from?
Long term (as in 20-30+ years) safety?

Think about it

1/25/2007 7:48 PM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

You'll get no arguments from me that a low-fat diet is indeed a valid nutritional approach for some. But low-carb is not given the same honor and respect that low-fat does. Why is that, Julie Anne? The bias couldn't be clearer.

As for "deficiencies," there are none when you are livin' la vida low-carb because it has been found to be the most nutrient-dense way of eating on the planet giving you all the healthy protein, fiber, and fat your body needs along with essential vitamins and minerals for living a long and healthy life.

The same cannot be said of low-fat diets since NOBODY has been able to submit a week's worth of menus that meet or exceed the nutritional requirements of the American Heart Association. Perhaps YOU would like to take a stab at it, Julie Anne? I asked your sister Kelly, but she has not responded to this request.

1/25/2007 8:12 PM  
Blogger Sue said...

Phytochemicals - garlic, onions, leak, plants - green salad, egg yolks, chilli peppers, flaxseed, berries, mushrooms, kale, brocolli, cabbage, cucumbers, tea-green,strawberries, raspberries, eggplant, blue berries, turmeric, red wine

Meat, Poultry, Eggs, Nuts - protein, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, B6, folate, B12, phosphorous, Magnesium, Iron, Zinc

Low carb vegies - Vitamin A, C, Potassium, Fibre

Vit D - herring, salmon, tuna
Vit E - sunflower seeds, almonds, avocado
Vit K - raw kale, cooked brocolli, raw spinach

All the above foods are low-carb. So, if you are best suited to a low-carb diet you are getting all the nutrients that you need.

1/25/2007 10:03 PM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

There are, of course, more nutrients than that.

Now, do note that this does depend on your version of low-carb diets. If you eat an abundance of fruits and vegetables, beans, and nuts (all-carb containing food) then these may not apply. See where I'm getting with this? This is not to say that protein rich foods don't have nutrients in them, this is to say that carb-containing foods do, and some of these nutrients aren't found in no carb foods. This means that 2 eggs and 2 pieces of bacon aren't as healthy as, 2 eggs and a bowl of blueberries.

By the way a study on heart disease doesn't validate long term safety, kind of like John's Hopkins study disproving the safety of synthetic Vitamin E, doesn't disprove the safety of Vitamin E.

This is more of what I was looking for:
Vitamin C-oranges, green peppers, watermelon, papaya, grapefruit, cantaloupe, strawberries, kiwi, mango, broccoli, tomatoes, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, cabbage, and citrus juices or juices fortified with Vitamin C. Raw and cooked leafy greens (turnip greens, spinach), red and green peppers, canned and fresh tomatoes, potatoes, winter squash, raspberries, blueberries, cranberries and pineapple

Beta Carotene (converted to vit a by body)- yellow, orange, and green leafy fruits and vegetables (such as carrots, spinach, lettuce, tomatoes, sweet potatoes, broccoli, cantaloupe, and winter squash

Biotin-Brewer's yeast
Organ meets (liver, kidney)
Cooked eggs, especially egg yolk
Nuts (almonds, peanuts, pecans, walnuts) and nut butters
Soybeans
Other legumes (beans, blackeye peas, peanuts)
Oatbran
Note that raw egg whites contain a protein called Avidin that interferes with the absorption of biotin. It is always recommended that people avoid eating raw eggs because of food poisoning caused by Salmonella. Food-processing techniques can destroy biotin. Less-processed versions of the foods listed above will contain more biotin.
Fiber-Soluble fiber is found in dried beans and peas, oats, barley, fruits, and psyllium seed husks. Insoluble fiber is found primarily in fruits and vegetables, whole-grain products, whole grain cereals, and wheat and corn bran.
RDA (recommended is currently 25g)-see salad comment from above

Folic Acid-spinach, dark leafy greens, asparagus, turnip, beet and mustard greens, Brussels sprouts, lima beans, soybeans, beef liver, brewer's yeast, root vegetables, whole grains, wheat germ, bulgur wheat, kidney beans, white beans, lima beans, mung beans oysters, salmon, orange juice, avocado, and milk
This B-vitamin is water soluable, that means from a low carb stand point you would have to eat liver, oysters, or salmon EVERYDAY.

Magnesium-tofu, legumes, whole grains, green leafy vegetables, wheat bran, Brazil nuts, soybean flour, almonds, cashews, blackstrap molasses, pumpkin and squash seeds, pine nuts, and black walnuts. Other good dietary sources of this mineral include peanuts, whole wheat flour, oat flour, beet greens, spinach, pistachio nuts, shredded wheat, bran cereals, oatmeal, bananas, and baked potatoes (with skin), chocolate, and cocoa powder. Many herbs, spices, and seaweeds supply magnesium, such as agar seaweed, coriander, dill weed, celery seed, sage, dried mustard, basil, cocoa powder, fennel seed, savory, cumin seed, tarragon, marjoram, poppy seed.

Manganese-nuts and seeds, wheat germ and whole grains (including unrefined cereals, buckwheat, bulgur wheat, and oats), legumes, and pineapples.

Quercitin (a bioflavanoid)- Fruits and vegetables -- particularly citrus fruits, apples, onions, parsley, tea, and red wine -- are the primary dietary sources of quercetin. Olive oil, grapes, dark cherries, and dark berries, such as blueberries, blackberries, and bilberries are also high in flavonoids including quercetin

1/26/2007 9:20 AM  
Blogger Julie Anne said...

Also, to answer you previous comments, when Kelly was still in college, she asked me to submit a dietary analysis for breaking down. Problem was at that point I was eating about 1,200 calories a day, and was under weight. Try this, write down everything that eat for lets say 3-5 days and submit it to a nutritionist or dietian for analysis.

I think part of this would be your version of a low-carb diet (see above). I remember peaking in the Atkins for Life book a couple years back, and was happy to see him recommending whole grains, beans, nuts, fruits, and vegetables. Tomatoes aren't evil.

Anyway, I'm glad to see the conversation has changed to the inclusion of nutritious food. Also, glad to see that there's no hostility here, Jimmy.

1/26/2007 9:31 AM  
Blogger Jeff Hamlin said...

Perhaps the conversation could be rid of the lies that you are promoting.

1/26/2007 11:50 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home