Low Carb Freedom

Low Carb stops or starts rages?

Jimmy over at Livin' La Vida Low-Carb has a post about how low carb or Atkins causes "rage" in people.

I've never experienced it. In fact, I wrote about how controlling your blood sugar actually decreases fits of anger in a much earlier post.

However, at least low carbers are open to asking people if they have experienced anything like it! In fact, Jimmy has another post about how a researcher is going to monitor the brain activity of people who low carb. Science will either refute or confirm the assertion that eating low carb starves the brain of vital nutrients. (You know where my bets are.... But after the study, it won't be as much fun to go after news articles like this one because they couldn't write them!)

What the Low Carb Doomsayers are Forgetting....

Another forecast of the demise of the low carb diet from Reuters:

The clock is ticking for makers of packaged foods aimed at low-carb dieters as more U.S. consumers are abandoning the protein-heavy regimens...

But behind such reinforcement of the "low-carb lifestyle," the percentage of Americans following diets like Atkins and South Beach dropped to 4.6 percent in September from 9 percent in January, according to research firm The NPD Group.

Sales of "The South Beach Diet" book slowed to about 20,000 copies a week in early October, down from around 70,000 a week during what some experts said was the peak of the low-carb diet craze in early March, according to Nielsen BookScan.

"The bloom is off the rose," said Bob Goldin, executive vice president of food industry consulting firm Technomic. "It doesn't look like the market has any staying power...."

NPD vice president Harry Balzer attributed the continued sales growth to consumers' willingness to try new things, but said the challenge is to get them to keep buying products often seen as costing more while not tasting as good as than the original versions.

"That's where the problem lies," Balzer said, adding that he did not expect the low-carb trend to last any more than another two years(emphasis mine). "We'll see a lot of (food companies) discover that this just isn't selling."

Two things will prove this theory wrong.

First, dieting is always cyclical. It always increases in January and falls off during the year, change is hard, but low carb diets work quickly (and work long term if you keep at it), so they will never go away unless they create the magic pill that melts off pounds.

Second, long term studies will continue to come out regarding low carb diets and how they lower diabetes risk and heart disease risk. As the studies go for longer periods of time, the "dieticians" that say that they aren't safe for the long term won't be able to keep repeating the mantra or they will seem like the Catholic church fighting the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. (And I'm not saying that the health and safety will be found for everyone -- our genes determine many things, and over the long term medicine will be extremely individualized and not a one size fits all approach, but low carb works for lots of people.)

Sooooo.... don't get depressed over these news stories!

New Preliminary Dietary Guidelines

I'm still "digesting" these. Biggest "outrage" in the main stream media is that they don't specifically give a recommendation for sugar intake. Now, while I think sugar is terrible for carbohydrate sensitive people like me (simply because it makes me hungry in the long run and I do think it does lead to diabetes,) I know we can do better with specific studies and discussing the facts and not the hysteria. See this post by Todd Zwyicki at the Volokh Conspiracy which takes apart the main stream media thesis that drinking sugared soft drinks increases your risk of type II diabetes by over 80 percent. He points to a good refutation of this:

Now what I understand Milloy to be saying is that those who drank more than one REGULAR soft drink per day had a 32% increase in diabetes prevalence, whereas those who drank more than one DIET soft drink per day had a 21% increase. The point, as I understood it, is that there was a noticeable increase in diabetes prevalence REGARDLESS of whether a person drank alot of regular or diet soda. Moreover, there is little difference in the increased prevalence between the two different types (its not clear to me if the 32% versus 21% is a statistically significant difference--Milloy's point seems to be the more colloquial one that the difference is not very large). Milloy's conclusion, therefore, is that the study has not shown that it is the sugar in the regular soft drinks that is causing the increased diabetes prevalence, because there is an increased diabetes prevalence from soft drink consumption regardless of whether it is sugared or non-sugared. If so, Milloy states that this suggests that some other independent factor is to blame, such as lifestyle or genetics, such that those who drink a lot of soda (regardless of which type) to be prone to contracting type 2 diabetes. A hypothesis would be something like those who drink alot of soda don't exercise as much or don't eat as healthy. I have no idea whether this is true or not, but if Milloy is correct then it suggests that the study misses the point by focusing on sugared drinks. It seems to me this is also why Milloy says that it matters what people's other caloric consumption is--if soda consumption is corellated with and is a proxy for other lifestyle habits, we would want to know what people's other caloric consumption (note that the reference point is non-soft drink calorie consumption).

An 11 percent increase is still a pretty big increase.

The Atkins Center is pretty upset about it and is urging people to write in.

How could this happen? The members of the panel had pages and pages of documentation detailing the harmful effects sugar has on the human metabolism, and yet they bury their warning about sugar in a vague and ultimately meaningless sentence. Considering that a myriad of scientific studies published over the past several years link excessive carbohydrate (including sugar) consumption to higher risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer, why are the members of the panel reluctant to be more direct about the dangers of empty carbs? It is hard not to conclude that the compelling evidence is overridden by their ties to special interest groups and their own bias toward low-fat dietary approaches.

The government will collect public comments on the panel's recommendations until September 27. It's imperative that honest and solid advice, based on scientific data regarding sugar consumption, be in the final guidelines when they are released early next year. These dietary guidelines are used nationwide to shape decisions such as school lunch offerings, food labeling and government dietary education.

If you’d like to be proactive on this crucial issue of our nation’s health, we encourage you to write (even if you have already done so) to the USDA and tell them how you feel about this dreadful omission. Unless the government hears from individuals who have strong feelings about what is wrong with their proposal, it is quite likely that the new recommendations will be approved in their current form. Once this occurs, it could be 10 years before the guidelines are reassessed.

All I can say is that if the scientific studies continue to come out that validate a low carbohydrate approach continue and these findings are not properly included in the guidelines, then the artificial ten-year update cycle will further erode our faith in the government doing anything correctly -- especially in the realm of our private lives. The question is, is this a bad thing? (grin)

(Actually, when I'm not being flip, it would be a bad thing for people who don't have access to the Internet and who are afraid of making decisions for themselves, which, unfortunately, includes a heck of a lot of people.)

Health Links... Glycemic Index

Here is an intersting article about the glycemic index. It actually talks about how, at least in rats, the results of eating a low glycemic index diet are clear:

In the study, one group of rats ate a starchy diet of high-glycemic foods while another received a starchy diet of low-glycemic food.

The study found that the rats eating high-glycemic food had 71 percent more body fat and 8 percent less lean body mass than those on the low-glycemic diet -- despite weighing the same.

The animals that ate high glycemic food also had significantly higher blood glucose and insulin levels, three times the blood levels of trigylcerides and more cell abnormalities in the pancreas, the organ that produces insulin.

The findings suggest, Ludwig said, that "glycemic index is an independent factor that can have dramatic effects on the major chronic diseases plaguing developed nations -- obesity, diabetes and heart disease." Whilethese findings come from a study on rats, the evidence warrants further investigation in humans, Ludwig said.

For those of you who read my blog a lot, I hate rat or mice studies! Although, these types of findings have been found with a low carbohydrate diet on humans already. The low GI diets still despise a lot of fat, unlike the Atkins diet. And studies are coming out that refute our hatred of fat, as long as the fat isn't coupled with carbohydrates.

Note: there are some inconsistencies within the article and with Atkins:

Mix it Up: That's an easy way to reduce the blood sugar effects of your favorite high-glycemic foods. So if you can't live without a sesame bagel, Rice Krispies and white rice, simply add foods that have a higher glycemic index to mute the rise in blood sugar. Eat those Krispies with skim milk, berries and a few nuts. Spread whipped regular cream cheese -- not nonfat, which is a high glycemic food -- on just half a bagel and add a slice of smoked salmon. Eat white rice with plenty of vegetables, a little lean meat, poultry, fish or beans.

On the one hand, drink skim milk. On the other hand, eat regular cream cheese. (Skim milk should have a higher index than regular milk because it has less fat.)

So, what is the upshot? A South Beach low glycemic index diet is better than the old low fat diet. Low fat, by itself, is a killer diet. Literally. (Atkins, although very similar to South Beach except for the higher fat intake allowances, is still beyond the pale for most of the medicial establishment.)

A CarbSlim Low Carb Candy Video Story

I really prefer reading stories on low carb versus watching stories on low carb, but I would be interested in hearing your opinion! (Time is one reason I prefer reading... I can skip ahead, reread, etc. Commericals are much more intrusive.)

Low Carb Video (You can see it after the commerical.)

If Harvard Says Low Carb Diets are OK, will Dieticians Finally See the Light?

Now that evidence continues to mount about the effectiveness and safety of low carb diets, the Harvard Health Letter even had to speak about low carb diets.

Low carb diets lose weight more quickly, but if low fat dieters stay with the diet, they eventually catch up. However,

As for the health effects, chief objections to low-carb dieting have been that they can increase levels of "bad" LDL cholesterol. But both year-long studies found that low-carb and low-fat diets had the same effect on LDL levels. And low-carb diets outdid low-fat diets with respect to other blood fats related to heart disease.

Now, for those people shorting low carb stocks... be very choosy which low carb stocks you short, because low carb IS here to stay. (Only bad tasting, high priced products are going to go down.)

Of course, the dieticians will be the last group to admit that there might be some benefit to low carb diets -- still. So if stock pickers look to this group as a bellweather, well, the results won't be pretty.

Lots of stuff on sugar alcohols

While I have briefly written about sugar alchohols, yesterday, the Wall Street Journal had a big article on sugar alcohol. (Of course, I can't link to it because you need to be both a print and online subscriber.) Dana Carpender also did a column on sugar alcohols. However, the best information that I have found on sugar alcohols is from a diabetic author named Jenny. (Jenny also isn't constrained by print space.)

Highlights of her article include:

Most of these "low carb" products are sweetened with substances called "sugar alcohols." Maltitol, lacitol, and sorbitol are some of names of these sweeteners. Despite the name, these aren't sugars or alcohols. They are hydrogenated starch molecules which are a byproduct of grain processing.

Despite wrapper claims, these sugar alcohols are metabolized. Each gram of a sugar alcohol turns into anywhere from less than 1 to as much as 3 calories. Erythritol comes in lowest, delivering less than one calorie per gram. Maltitol--the sugar alcohol found in most "low carb" foods is the highest, delivering 3 calories per gram. That is only a bit less than 4 calories you find in regular sugar and starch.

Small print on back of these label explains that fiber and sugar alcohols have a "negligible effect on blood sugar". This, they suggest means that you can ignore them, and magically converts foods that have 24 grams of carbs--and the associated calories--into foods with a diet-friendly 3 grams.

If it were true that these foods did not raise blood sugar, it would make them ideal for the low carb diet. However, it is not always true. Some lucky people can eat these low carb treats and still lose weight on a low carb diet. But hundreds of people who have stopped by the alt.support.diet.low-carb news group to ask why their weight loss has stopped cold, discover that it is these sugar alcohol-laden low carb junk foods that have caused their long-term stalls.

Oh, heck, just go read the whole thing! (And she also tells me something about nut labels that I never knew before! They should fix that damn quick! And you have to read it to find it.)

And while you are at it, read about how to stop a hunger craving and how to get back on the low carb bandwagon once you have fallen off.

Update: Here is more on what you should look for in low carb sweeteners!

Low Carb Companies & Bloggers

I have worked at Ziff-Davis, a very large computer publisher, so I know what magazines do. Blogging is different. Bloggers don't have editors; they just have readers who try to keep them on their toes. Bloggers don't have to worry about advertisers because we don't really have any.

Bloggers deal in real time. If they make a mistake, then they can fix it in an hour (or a minute) and not have to wait for a corrections page or even an editor to make sure the spelling and grammar is correct before the correction is posted online. (This is not always a good thing, mind you. I have worked with fast, great editors, who really make copy shine! Hey, Paula Lovejoy, if you are out there, I still remember you!)

Bloggers also don't have too many company reps trying to get them to write posts about their company’s products. They are not constantly sent press releases or free product. In fact, sometimes it is really hard to get any information from companies. (As an aside, this reminds me of when the computer magazines were young. I worked for Houghton Mifflin that had a dictionary software product. The computer magazines asked for free copies so they could review it. The marketing person thought that they should pay for the product. Needless to say, it didn't get reviewed in that particular computer magzine. Talk about ignorant. I would like to think we are in this "young" stage with bloggers.) Why? Well, I think most companies don't know about bloggers, or if they do, then most companies consider bloggers small fry. Not worth the effort. (And this post talks about how this might be slowly changing.)

However, there are some people who are early adopters in companies, who do take the time to contact bloggers. Joseph Mazur, formerly of Mr. Cookie Face (honest, that is the name of the company who makes the Keto ice cream), was one of those people. He sent me Keto Low Carb Ice Cream. I reviewed it. (And I also disclosed the fact that it was sent to me for free.) If someone sent me an email about Keto, I forwarded the question to him because I wanted to answer my reader's questions if I could. He always replied. Recently, I forwarded an email from a reader, and Joe kindly wrote me back and told me he was laid off, but forwarded my email to a new contact. Well, my brother, and my sister-in-law just got laid off, and while I can't do much to help them because this blog doesn't deal with their professions, I can let people know that Joe is forward thinking and was always professional in his contact with me. So, if any food manufacturers/distributors are looking for someone who cares, contact Joe.

Download joseph_mazur_resume.doc

Pepsi and Low Carb -- Different Views...

The Financial Times Article on Pepsi and Low Carb

versus

A Herald Staff Writer

The Financial Times is saying low carb is trending down.

The Herald Staff Writer says that it is the full carb product lines that are trending down.

Hmmmm...... methinks there is some storyline copying disease going around and the Financial Times has a bad case. (I can almost hear "low carb quagmire" as subtext.)

Update: Another example ---

Lots of news stories saying people have given up on low carb diets (But please note they are only saying 1 or 2 percent... and remember, everyone goes on a diet in January. If that is all that low carb diets have lost, then I would say it is a raving success! Try the same "test" on any other type of diet and the dropoff, I would wager, would be more dramatic.)

versus

Krispy Kreme sales still not up

Now, people may be giving up and just not eating donuts... (which is a good thing, whatever you think about low carb)

Here is a study that really gets the experts...

Granted, this stuff has to be studied long term, but in the health field, we are actually lucky -- things can be studied through individuals (not like global warming where everything is done through a computer model, which compounds error after error.)

And it is awfully hard to refute blood tests etc., but of course, people will try.

And this study will be pilloried!

It actually states:

A very high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet has been shown to have astounding effects in helping type 2 diabetics lose weight and improve their blood lipid profiles.

The results of three studies involving such a diet, which is similar to, but has a few key differences from the famous "Dr. Atkins Diet", were presented today at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Dr. James Hays, an endocrinologist and director of the Limestone Medical Center in Wilmington, DE, admitted that the concept of a high-fat diet in people who are already at higher risk of cardiovascular disease might seem incongruous. Nonetheless, this study of 157 men and women with type 2 diabetes showed an impressive benefit in body mass index (BMI) triglycerides, HDL, LDL and HbA1c...

Whereas a normal diet would be in the order of 1800 to 2100 calories, with 60 percent of calories coming from carbohydrates and 30 percent from fat, patients in this diet were restricted to 1800 calories per day and were encouraged to get 50 percent of their caloric intake from fat, and just 20 percent from carbohydrates. The balance of 30 percent would come from proteins. A whopping 90 percent of the fat content in their diets was saturated fat, compared with just 10 percent that was monounsaturated fat.

My good "friend" Tara Parker-Pope of the Wall Street Journal who (if I remember correctly because, while I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, you have to pay extra for their online service and I don't do that) constantly states that a calorie is a calorie and fat is bad had a seemingly change of heart in the June 22 edition when she answered this question:

I've heard olive oil and canola oil are good for your heart. But they are still fats, so wouldn't it be even better to avoid them (and all fats) completely?

Of course, she replies like most people would, but notice the bold faced area of her response:

Cutting out fat from your diet completely is not the answer. Your body needs some fat to function, and studies have shown that monounstaturated fat, like that found in olive oil, and polyunsaturated fats, like those found in canola oil and fish, help protect against heart disease. Saturated fat, like that found in butter and beef, has been more controversial lately. Most nutritionists and heart doctors believe we should cut back saturated fat in our diets. But the late Robert Atkins believed saturated fat isn't as risky to your health as has been claimed and noted that saturated fat has been linked with higher levels of HDL or "good" cholesterol.

Might she have read this study and has the "tipping point" almost been reached where the evidence is so overwhelming that it can no longer be denied so it is time to play it safe? (BTW, I applaud this answer. At least it brings up that there is another side to the debate and leaves the question open.)