A question - posed elsewhere

[cmcole]

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=302587

Anyway, I've been doing a lot of reading lately about different eating plans and how they go along with how we evolved. It got me thinking.

Let me digress a moment to say that I've read the original Protein Power and the Protein Power Lifeplan more times than I can say. I've actually had to purchase new copies of each, since the pages are so dog-eared and the bindings break from over-use.

So, I'm having difficulty assimilating certain things that the Eades (and many others) are saying.

For example, the Eades say that carbohydrates are totally unnecessary. Here's the exact quotation, taken from PPLP, page 9 of the hardcover edition:

"Carbohydrates, the third macronutrient, are totally unessential to human health."
Here's another one, taken from PP, page 113 of the hardcover edition:

"How much fiber do you need? For good health people usually need at least 25 grams a day. In the past, restricted-carbyhydrate diets have been criticized for not providing enough fiber. Is this a valid concern? Yes, but not with our plan, which provides ample fiber."
So, if we believe the first statement (and I do), why would we need at least 25 grams of carbs a day?

Also, if the first statement is true, why is the goal of the maintenance plan described by the Eades in PP (page 184):

"You will accomplish this [transition to maintenance] by gradually increasing your per-meal carbohydrate level until you reach a daily total carboydrate gram intake roughly equal to to slightly more than your daily protein intake."
So, first they state that carbs are absolutely unnecessary for human health, then they say that you need 25 grams of fiber for health, and then they say when all is said and done, you'll be eating as much as or more carbs (in grams) than protein.

Am I the only one confused about this?

I know some people will say that the veggies have tons of vitamins in them. But if carbs are totally unnecessary for health, then surely we would be getting those vitamins naturally from the meat and fat we consume.

I ask because I've recently stopped eating virtually all vegetables, and all salads. I feel much better. Whenever I ate veggies, they gave me constiptation. So, I would eat more. The only way NOT to have constipation was to eat tons of veggies (and then who has room for the protein and fat?), PLUS take fiber supplements daily. How can this be "normal" and healthy?

Since shunning veggies from my plate, I have no more problems with constipation. None. Shouldn't that say something?

Just curious about what others think about these disparities. I'm not criticizing anyone's way of eating. I'm just curious about all this.

[Mitra]

I don't have time to dig out all the references now, but will post a few quick thoughts anyway.

I think the Eadeses are backing off somewhat from the fibre requirement recently (I think it was mentioned in a blog), but anyway, it seems to be only in America that fibre is a carb. In Europe it isn't!

The increase in carbs at maintenance, they explain in Staying Power is not because you need the carbs, but because they allow you to add more variety to your diet and make it easier to stay on plan.

They explain that while you don't need the carbs per se, vegetables have many micronutrients that are beneficial (antioxidants, carotenes, phytonutrients etc) and they also help add alkalinity to balance the acid effect of meat (and grains, though that's not much of a concern for low carbers), so protecting your bones. So you don't need the carbs, and you may not "need" the other stuff, but vegetables do have health benefits - some of which are very long term.

(I think I said a lot of this in the thread you linked - sorry to repeat myself.)

[cmcole]

That's OK. It's a good reference to have here, anyway.
Thank you for your answer.

[Tad]

I think the key to reconciling those two statements is that fiber is a carbohydrate (as in, a term for a type of chemical compound), but as far as the human body is concerned, not all carbohydrates are macronutrients (as in things that can be metabolized). Another example would probably be chitin (guessing). So when they're talking about carbohydrates being unnecessary macronutrients, they really mean that sugar and starch are unnecessary. Somewhere in there they also mention that glucose is required by the brain in minute amounts but that can be produced from protein. On pages 147 and 323 of my PPLP they say that fiber is used as food by bacteria in the large intestine.

[Gabriel Guzman]

There is always a risk when taken things literally without examining the context. In this case, the statement




"Carbohydrates, the third macronutrient, are totally unessential to human health."

is dietary carbohydrate, not just carbohydrate in general. There are many examples of that in groups of humans with virtually no access to plant food, which is where fiber comes from.

After the publication of PPLP, more information came out about the real need for a specific amount of fiber. The apparent link between higher fiber consumption and less risk of colon cancer, for example, is not as strong as it was believed. But 'essential' it probably isn't. In contrast, dietary protein or fat are aboslutely essential for survival. As we've repeated so many times, there is no mention of a single disease caused by deficiency of dietary carbohdyrate, whereas there are a number conditions (some of them life-threatening) resulting from not enough dietary protein and/or fat.

The context is then: dietary carbohydrate.

The suggestion to increase carbohydrate intake during transition/maintenance is not a must-do. In fact, they also wrote that although once can increase carbohydrate levels during transition/maintenance, many find themselves more comfortable with the intervention level of carbohydrate. So, it is not a necessity to increase carbohdyrates, and it doesn't hinder any success. It's a choice and for those who can't seem to really part from some foods they hold dearly, transition/maintenance gives them a chance to re-introduce some of those foods gradually without them becoming the bulk of their diet again.

Other circumstances may need an increase in carbohydrate intake, such as exercise that depends more on the use of glucose than fatty acids for energy. Then again, when people on a carbohydrate-controlled diet choose to engage in such type of exercise, their ability to handle carbohydrate has already improved and have no problem increasing their intake to a point. That, however, is not the same case of a more sedentary person or soembody who exercises in a way that fat is the preferred fuel source.

Finally, just because carbohydrates may not be essential to sustain life (again, the context in which some say they are is 'they should be the bulk of your diet'), it doesn't mean that we can't use them. Borrowing a term from Bacteriology, we are 'facultative' with respect to the use of carbohdyate; if they're not there, we don't really need them but if they're present, we can use them.

Non-starchy vegetables have very little amountof effective carbohdyrate (the type of carbohydrate that does have an impact in insulin secretion), compared to other micronutrients such as vitamins. Some of them have virtually no effective carbohdyrate at all. That's why those foods are the best choices to make up an individual's ECC intake as it takes a large volume of non-starch vegetables to account for say 10-15 ECC. With all of the above in mind, there are no disparities in the concepts you brought up.

I hope this helped. :)

[cmcole]

It never ceases to amaze me how much time and effort you take to answer my queries. I really appreciate it.

Having just purchased a used copy of PP, and not owning PPLP, I certainly don't have all the facts straight regarding PP lifestyle. However, I am learning, and willing to learn, and you provide such a wonderfully supportive environment in which to do so.

[Gabriel Guzman]

Your welcome. It's interesting that you wrote that, precisely when I'm just getting done writing a statement of teaching philosophy (Science Teaching) and I used one of Einsteins quotes that says:



"Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning".

Most of all, the last part applies to all of us. So, never stop questioning and we'll never stop answering whenever we have something constructive to contribute with! :)