Comments on: Nutrition & Metabolism meeting

By: Jeff Walzer

Jeff Walzer — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:59:43 +0000

Dr. Eades,

I’ve been reading your blog with great interest (in addition to following the writing of Mr. Taubes) and based on my personal experience, the low-carb lifestyle or diet works great for me. I am planning on reading through your books and Mr. taubes ‘Good Calories, Bad Calories’ book as well to gain more scientific insight into why low-carb works and the general effect of carbs on the body. I have a few questions that I was hoping you shed some light on:

1) Is it possible that the low-carb diet (or any diet that is being peddled these days) works for some people are not for others due to genetics? I see the arguments that go on about high-carb vs. low-carb, high-fat vs. low-fat, etc., and wonder if there needs to be any arguments at all because maybe one diet works for one person while another wouldn’t, so why argue? All it takes is a bit of self-experimentation to find out what works for your body type.

2) I workout hard with weights 5 days a week doing circuit training and my concern is that carbs are considered fuel for the body and if I go low-carb where will my body draw fuel from? I assume my fat reserves? What about when I need to replenish my glyocen stores? Is that when I should increase my carb intake?

Thanks for all of the hard work you pour into the research and science behind what you write about. It’s very refreshing to constantly learn new things.

Thanks,
Jeff

I would think that any diet would work slightly differently within a population of people based on genetic differences. But I don’t think these differences would be great enough to, say, mean that a low-carb diet wouldn’t work for some people. I think it works for all, maybe a little better for some than for others, but still probably the best diet for all.

Studies have shown that after a period of low-carb adaptation the enzyme responsible for making glycogen in markedly more active, squeezing glycogen out of whatever sources are available, including the glycerol left over from fat breakdown. People are more insulin sensitive after an intense workout, so, if you are going to consume carbs, that’s the time to do it. It will pretty much convert to glycogen as long as you don’t over do it and consume so much that your glycogen stores are filled and there is still sugar left over.

Cheers–

MRE

By: Patricia Crawford

Patricia Crawford — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:25:41 +0000

“I listened in and learned, among other things, that his work with glucogenogenesis has shown that the newly minted glucose (made from protein) goes first into glycogen and from there into the circulation. I always thought it went directly into the blood stream from the liver, but work with carbon 13 tracing shows that it goes into glycogen first.”

I’m intrigued by this. What is the significance of it?

Thanks,

Pat

No real significance other than the conversion has an extra step that most people didn’t think was there.

By: Rita

Rita — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:39:16 +0000

Any comments on this study? Sorry, it has nothing to do with the current topic.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/66/5/1264

I’m quite familiar with this study. I find it interesting, but without knowing what’s happening to glucagon (insulin’s opposing hormone) at the same time, it’s pretty much worthless.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:19:07 +0000

Dr. Eades,

Have you stopped blogging or is my browser not refreshing? Haven’t seen anything for a while. Miss your commentary.

If you have a moment, check out my post today “washboard abs on a high fat diet, no cardio and no ab routines.” http://www.marksdailyapple.com/high-fat-diet-no-cardio-washboard-abs/#comments

Hey Mark–

I’m back at it. Thanks for continuing to check.

Best–

MRE

By: kadu

kadu — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:48:01 +0000

Nice to meet you. I claim to be kadu.
I serve as a reference very interestingly.The article was very informative.
I am fortunate when I link.

http://daily-health-idea.blogspot.com/

By: Mary Titus, Orange California

Mary Titus, Orange California — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:34:48 +0000

Dr. Eades, I look forward to what Gary Taubes says about the “Prevention” article. I read it on a low carb site where I am a regular poster. As a matter of fact, I stopped reading the magazine after I became aware of their lack of low carb knowledge. Prevention magazine is a bit anti-low carb and I was surprised that this article was even considered by the editors. I would like to hear what Gary’s experience was with this periodical.

Low-carb IFing and loving it,
Mary

Hi Mary–

I’ll ask him next time I talk to him.

Best–

MRE

By: Patty Amidon

Patty Amidon — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:16:57 +0000

Dr. Eades, this is off the subject but I have come across some information concerning an Italian oncologist named Dr. Simoncini. He says that cancer is caused by a fungus and has treated tumors by flushing them with sodium bicarbonate . Have you heard of this and if so, what is your opinion?

Hi Patty–

I have never heard of Dr. Simoncini or his methods, so I can’t give an intelligent answer. Maybe other readers can shed some light.

Best–

MRE

By: ItsTheWooo

ItsTheWooo — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:33:10 +0000

Very interesting and thank you for sharing.
PS I find it a little amusing that there is a platter of what appears to be bagels or some kind of rolls, in front of what might as well be the mount rushmore of the low carb world (you, taubes, feinman).

Notice that the bread is still in the platter and not in us.

Cheers–

MRE

By: Barry Bennett

Barry Bennett — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:14:29 +0000

Ok, here you hve it. My, forgive me, ex-wife and I used the Hp/Lc way of eating in 1996. We both ate that way for over nine3 months. Exercised and followed your plan to a tee. She lost almost 60 pounds and me 48 and felt great. Then for some reason we stopped. Didn’t take long to put the weight back on. Anyway, now in 2008 I’ve been diagnosed with diabetes. I wanted to start using your plan again simply because I know people who were on the pill and just a few weeks later they were off. I’ve always been skeptical of the medical proffession believing that a majority of doctors only want to treat systems not cure them. Being 58 years old I’ve read many reports of things that could make and keep you healthy. AMA always turns against these studies. Why? If we were all healthy we wouldn’t need them nearly as much as we do now. What would that cause? Lost of income and devistate the drug companies. I’m not totally anti-doctor. When I had my accident, if it wasn’t for the quick thinking of a doctor I would have lost my leg. Now to the point. I started on your plan. I told my daughter, which had tried your way once, she said she felt awful, probably because of a carb crash. Anyway, she turned totally against lc way of life. She has done nothing but research the internet for the negative. She even found one nutritionist that said the lc is absolutely the most dangerous diet a diabetic can do. She sent me all kinds of sites to go to to prove you wrong. That there is proof you are wrong. That being on your diet long term causes premature death. I have one web site, it,s in my e-mail. Oh, his name is Ornish. According to my daughter, he claims to have the ONLY studies that prove the lc is not good for you.. I tried to tell her her that thousands of people have been using your way for years and that you have thousands of case studies and years of research and refinement. But, the biggest problem with her, she absolutely trusts the AMA and I guess she absolutely refuses to search for the possitives. I read about the guy who theorized about the tetonic plates. How true in this case that so many would not see the light. Simple answers: being backed by drug companies, no need for their services, lost wages. Thank you DR. Eades and your wife for doing what you do so well. HeeHee. I hope this isn’t too long to make it to you. Barry Bennett

Hi Barry–

No, it’s not too long. It’s just sad. I’ve discovered that there is no way to make someone who is hellbent on another way of eating to change. These people have to come to it themselves. I wish your daughter well.

Best–

By: Bruce Kleisner

Bruce Kleisner — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:01:00 +0000

Mark Levin: “It appears that fructose and galactose have approximately ten times the glycation activity of glucose, the primary body fuel[6].”

That study is based on refined purified fructose. It is illogical to assume that the same would happen with, say, fresh fruit or unheated (comb) honey. I think the problem with all of these sugars comes from the extensive refining and heating they undergo. Their lack of nutrients is causing the glycation. I bet if you put protein in raw honey or fruit juice, it would not hardly any glycation. This is the problem with a lot of low-carb proponents, IMO. They talk about a study using refined sugars, as if it implies something for fresh, raw, natural, unrefined sugars. Let’s see some studies using unheated honey and raw fruit juice. I bet they don’t cause even one percent as much glycation as the refined processed sugars do.

Also, the term glycation is a misnomer, because a lot of the protein damage blamed on sugar actually comes from lipids. Advanced Glycation End products (AGEs) are coming to be known as Advanced Lipoxidation End products (ALEs), too, meaning that the damage comes from the oxidation of PUFAs (which are abundant in modern diets, and build up in the body with age).
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/271/17/9982

Hi Bruce–

I disagree about the idea that the lack of nutrients in refined sugars as the driving force for glycation. Plain old glucose – blood sugar – causes plenty of glycation, and it is just a sugar. I suspect that protein incubated in a solution with fresh honey would glycate just as readily as with a comparable mixture of refined fructose and glucose.

Best–