This will be my last post on Inner Carnivore. I will continue blogging, but am moving to my new blog, Low Carb Wisdom.
Why the change? Inner Carnivore could best be described as the "honeymoon period" I have had with the low carb way of life. It was a voyage of discovery for me, as I learned a lot of new things about the low carb way of eating. However, after five months and 55 pounds of weight loss, I have also begun to notice the warts about low carbing and I want to change the focus of the blog.
The new blog will be a critical examination of the pros and cons of low carbing, including an in depth examination of the Conventional Wisdom and Prevailing Opinion about the low carb lifestyle. I will continue the low carb way of eating, but as I mentioned in the previous post, it is not a magic weight loss bullet. Hard work, willpower, and calorie counting are still necessities, as I will explain.
So if you have enjoyed reading Inner Carnivore, follow me over to Low Carb Wisdom.
Inner Carnivore
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Epiphany: No Magic Bullet
I have written about nutritional conventional wisdom or prevailing opinion (CWOPO) before and it is one of the most read articles on this site. However, I have come the the realization that CWOPO exists within the low carb community as well and, as is often the case with conventional nutritional wisdom, low carb CWOPO can be wrong. At least for me. Let me explain.
As I have mentioned before, I have at one time lost a lot of weight (100+ pounds) using Weight Watchers, but gained it all back. Over a nine month period, I averaged 2.4 pounds per week on WW. Five months into my low carb journey and I am averaging less weight loss per week (2.3) than on WW. I realize I am almost 50 years old, and that should explain some of the slow down, but not all. In recent weeks, my weight loss has slowed considerably, to less than two pounds per week. The low carb community on the web often talks about weight loss stalls, or plateaus, and I want to avoid that. So I have been analyzing what I have been eating, including my total calories, using software I have written about before. This led to my epiphany.
The low carb diet is a high fat, moderate protein, low carb diet. This makes sense: if you reduce carbs, you must replace the macro nutrient total with either protein or fat and too much protein can be dangerous (according to chapter 15, p. 210 of The Art and Science of Low Carb Living). So we increase the fat. If you look at my macro nutrient breakdown from yesterday (for a total of 2,100 calories) using the livestrong.com software, it looks like this:
As I have mentioned before, I have at one time lost a lot of weight (100+ pounds) using Weight Watchers, but gained it all back. Over a nine month period, I averaged 2.4 pounds per week on WW. Five months into my low carb journey and I am averaging less weight loss per week (2.3) than on WW. I realize I am almost 50 years old, and that should explain some of the slow down, but not all. In recent weeks, my weight loss has slowed considerably, to less than two pounds per week. The low carb community on the web often talks about weight loss stalls, or plateaus, and I want to avoid that. So I have been analyzing what I have been eating, including my total calories, using software I have written about before. This led to my epiphany.
The low carb diet is a high fat, moderate protein, low carb diet. This makes sense: if you reduce carbs, you must replace the macro nutrient total with either protein or fat and too much protein can be dangerous (according to chapter 15, p. 210 of The Art and Science of Low Carb Living). So we increase the fat. If you look at my macro nutrient breakdown from yesterday (for a total of 2,100 calories) using the livestrong.com software, it looks like this:
So I am clearly following a high fat, moderate protein, low carb diet. But here is where low carb CWOPO comes into play: CWOPO tells me that calories do not count, that low carbing provides a metabolic advantage, and that I should be adding a lot of fat to my diet to boost my fat intake total. So I added fat, didn't count calories, and counted on the metabolic advantage to take care of the rest. And my weight loss has slowed.
Then I had an epiphany. At 2,100 calories, I AM eating a high fat, moderate protein, low carb diet. There is no need to add a lot of additional fat to the diet, and calories do count.
So I have made some changes. I am watching/tracking my calories on livestrong.com, I am cutting some of the fat (as adding it only adds calories, and they do count!) and for me, metabolic advantage is a myth.
What I wanted was a magic bullet to cure my weight problems. I thought low carb was it. It works well for me, it keeps the hunger demons at bay, intrinsically, I like it A LOT more than the low fat diets like Weight Watchers, but it isn't the magic bullet I wanted. It still requires willpower and hard work to make it to my goal. And it provides a way to maintain my weight that I can live with.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Tracking Macro Nutrients
I recently discovered the livestrong.com web site (developed by the Lance Armstrong foundation). While it is based on faulty nutritional assumptions (CWOPO), such as lowering cholesterol and sodium intake, it is very useful for tracking calories and your macro nutrient breakdown (e.g., how much protein, fat, and carbohydrates you consume).
As I have mentioned before, the low carb lifestyle is more about fat than protein. It is a high fat, moderate protein, low carb diet. In percentage terms, my macro nutrient breakdown for yesterday is as follows:
As I have mentioned before, the low carb lifestyle is more about fat than protein. It is a high fat, moderate protein, low carb diet. In percentage terms, my macro nutrient breakdown for yesterday is as follows:
Translated into numbers, yesterday, I consumed 165 grams of protein, 29 grams of "arbs" (or "carbs," of which 7 grams were fiber, for a net carb total of 22 grams), and 230 grams of fat. My total calories consumed yesterday came to 2,808 but, according to this software, I also walked the dog for 330 calories, making my net caloric intake yesterday 2,478 calories. The database at this site is very extensive, the best I have seen.
So while I do not really track calories (I only track grams of carbs and I am still losing weight), this was a very useful software tool for tracking macro nutrients and for getting a picture of what I am eating.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Low Carb vs. Low Fat for Weight Loss
Apparently, 14 clinical trials comparing a low carb diets with low fat diets with statistically significant results have been published between 2003 and 2008. In all 14 trials, those on low carb diets lost significantly more weight than those on low fat diets. The author is careful to point out that he only selected studies that statistically compared one diet to another, and that the "low carb" diets were truly low carb. (Some studies claiming to compare low fat with "low carb" are not really low carb, as there are more than 30% of calories from carbohydrates. In a true low carb diet, carbs are usually 5 to 10% of calories).
The author of the article summarizing this list has given permission to copy it onto other blogs, so I am taking advantage of his generosity. Here are the studies, complete with links, for you data junkies out there.
Randomized controlled trials showing significantly more weight loss with low carb diets:
The author of the article summarizing this list has given permission to copy it onto other blogs, so I am taking advantage of his generosity. Here are the studies, complete with links, for you data junkies out there.
Randomized controlled trials showing significantly more weight loss with low carb diets:
- Brehm BJ, et al. A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:1617–1623.
- Samaha FF, et al. A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2074–81.
- Sondike SB, et al. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents. J Pediatr. 2003 Mar;142(3):253–8.
- Aude YW, et al. The National Cholesterol Education Program Diet vs a Diet Lower in Carbohydrates and Higher in Protein and Monounsaturated Fat. A Randomized Trial. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2141–2146.
- Volek JS, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism 2004, 1:13.
- Yancy WS Jr, et al. A Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet versus a Low-Fat Diet To Treat Obesity and Hyperlipidemia. A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:769–777.
- Nichols-Richardsson SM, et al. Perceived Hunger Is Lower and Weight Loss Is Greater in Overweight Premenopausal Women Consuming a Low-Carbohydrate/High- Protein vs High-Carbohydrate/Low-Fat Diet. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105:1433–1437.
- Gardner CD, et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and learn Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women. The a to z Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2007;297:969–977.
- Shai I, et al. Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, mediterranean, or low-fat diet. N Engl J Med 2008;359(3);229–41.
- Krebs NF, et al. Efficacy and Safety of a High Protein, Low Carbohydrate Diet for Weight Loss in Severely Obese Adolescents. J Pediatr 2010;157:252-8.
- Summer SS, et al. Adiponectin Changes in Relation to the Macronutrient Composition of a Weight-Loss Diet. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Mar 31. [Epub ahead of print]
- Daly ME, et al. Short-term effects of severe dietary carbohydrate-restriction advice in Type 2 diabetes–a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med. 2006 Jan;23(1):15–20.
- Westman EC, et al. The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low- glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nutr. Metab (Lond.)2008 Dec 19;5:36.
- Dyson PA, et al. A low-carbohydrate diet is more effective in reducing body weight than healthy eating in both diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. Diabet Med. 2007 Dec;24(12):1430-5.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Dietary Consequences of Farm Subsidies
Soybeans are heavily subsidized by the U.S. government, as is corn. If you read labels, you will notice that corn and soybean products are in everything. Why? Since they are subsidized, they are very inexpensive and hence are used more often than other, more expensive raw materials. For example, compare the price of olive oil, which is not subsidized, with the price of corn or soybean oil, which are subsidized. If we are what we eat, then, according to Michael Pollan, we are corn and soybeans.
Read the ingredients label on any processed food in your pantry; chances are, they will contain soy or corn. Some estimates suggest that 40% of the calories in the standard American diet come directly from either soy (a cheap source of protein and fat) or corn (a cheap source of carbohydrates). And even more is consumed indirectly, since much of the diet of cattle and chicken is also comprised of soy and corn.
So what's the problem? Isn't saving families money a good thing? Saving money is a good thing, but what if, in the attempt to save money, you are eating foods that are a direct cause of the national obesity and diabetes crises?
Is consuming so many products made from corn and soy even healthy? Some people have suggested that eating soy products is dangerous and entire books have been written about the negative aspects of soy consumption. Others suggest that the fear of soy is overblown but suggest caution and limited quantities anyway. High fructose corn syrup has taken a beating in the popular press lately, so much so that the Corn Refiner's Association has petitioned the FDA to rebrand high fructose corn syrup as "corn sugar." And carbohydrates in general, such as those provided by corn products, are increasingly being fingered as a cause of dietary harm, even in the mainstream media, in such publications as the New York Times and the Los AngelesTimes.
Vegetable and seed oils, such as corn and soybean oils, have replaced fats from animal sources in the standard American diet, with a lot of unexpected, negative consequences.
Here's the problem: real food (fresh fruits, vegetables, non-grain fed meats, eggs, dairy products from pastured cows, animal sources of fats, etc.), food that is healthy and that will nourish you, is not subsidized and is much more expensive. In other words, the type of food we low carbers eat. Cheap, subsidized, and processed foods, dense in carbohydrates, are very fattening. Is this an appropriate use of our tax dollars?
Read the ingredients label on any processed food in your pantry; chances are, they will contain soy or corn. Some estimates suggest that 40% of the calories in the standard American diet come directly from either soy (a cheap source of protein and fat) or corn (a cheap source of carbohydrates). And even more is consumed indirectly, since much of the diet of cattle and chicken is also comprised of soy and corn.
So what's the problem? Isn't saving families money a good thing? Saving money is a good thing, but what if, in the attempt to save money, you are eating foods that are a direct cause of the national obesity and diabetes crises?
Is consuming so many products made from corn and soy even healthy? Some people have suggested that eating soy products is dangerous and entire books have been written about the negative aspects of soy consumption. Others suggest that the fear of soy is overblown but suggest caution and limited quantities anyway. High fructose corn syrup has taken a beating in the popular press lately, so much so that the Corn Refiner's Association has petitioned the FDA to rebrand high fructose corn syrup as "corn sugar." And carbohydrates in general, such as those provided by corn products, are increasingly being fingered as a cause of dietary harm, even in the mainstream media, in such publications as the New York Times and the Los AngelesTimes.
Vegetable and seed oils, such as corn and soybean oils, have replaced fats from animal sources in the standard American diet, with a lot of unexpected, negative consequences.
Here's the problem: real food (fresh fruits, vegetables, non-grain fed meats, eggs, dairy products from pastured cows, animal sources of fats, etc.), food that is healthy and that will nourish you, is not subsidized and is much more expensive. In other words, the type of food we low carbers eat. Cheap, subsidized, and processed foods, dense in carbohydrates, are very fattening. Is this an appropriate use of our tax dollars?
Monday, July 25, 2011
Weekly Update
My weight loss has slowed somewhat over the past two weeks. I have lost a total of 2.6 pounds in the past two weeks, including our vacation to Maine. So I am not disappointed with the loss, as we have been eating out way too much. I make good choices, the best available, but it is certainly easier to eat at home. Follow my weight loss progress with this chart. I have now lost 52.6 pounds in 23 weeks, for a weekly average loss of 2.29 pounds.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Vacation Reading
I used to mock my mother for reading cookbooks, but, apparently, I am my mother's son, because on my recent vacation to Maine, I read a cookbook.
Not just any cookbook, but Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats by Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, Ph.D. This cookbook follows the philosophy of Weston A. Price, whose book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (which I partially reviewed) inspired her cookbook and led to the creation of the Weston A. Price foundation. In brief, Price traveled around the world in the 1930's and studied traditional cultures to see what gave them their perfect health. (The photos in the book are amazing). He came up with a number of recommendations, and this cookbook puts those recommendations into action.
The "cookbook" is actually much more than a cookbook. The first seventy-five or so pages review nutritional science and challenge many existing ideas, such as the lipid hypothesis. It is a book on how to cook in the traditional, healthy manner as much as a list of recipes and the book is loaded with a lot of information in the sidebars on each page.
The authors go into a great amount of detail on how to prepare ingredients for each recipe. For example, how to soak grains, such as wheat, to remove the problematic phytates; how to prepare bone broth; why you should consume raw milk and cream; how to (and why it is necessary) produce whey and homemade cream cheese; and how to cook with organ meats, among many other topics. There is a source of supplies in the back and while not strictly low carb, it is an overall healthy philosophy of eating. The cookbook shuns processed foods of all types (e.g., refined flour and processed sugar) and in all things seeks to emulate how traditional societies prepared foods for perfect health. While not completely low carb, most of what is in the cookbook aligns quite nicely with the low carb philosophy because the authors' philosophy on eating is very similar.
Personally, I found the cookbook very exciting to read and cannot wait to try out many of the recipes. But I do think it will be time consuming and require a lot of advanced planning. For example, to make biscuits, I would need to spend a week preparing a sour dough starter, plus soak the wheat for a few days until it starts to sprout; then dry the sprouted wheat, before grinding it. That might also take the better part of a week. I can see that this method of cooking will require a lot of advanced planning.
Jimmy Moore demonstrated that raw milk had almost no effect on his blood sugar levels, so I am very curious to see how sprouted or soaked wheat will effect my blood sugars. I suspect I will be pleasantly surprised.
All in all, this was a very worthwhile reading experience. I wish I had known what I know now when we were raising children, as I am sure I would have had a bigger influence on what was prepared for family meals. (For purposes of clarity, my wife did most of the cooking when the kids were at home and tried to cook in as healthy a manner as she knew how, based on the available information. There is no criticism of her cooking leveled or implied in this blog entry).
Not just any cookbook, but Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats by Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, Ph.D. This cookbook follows the philosophy of Weston A. Price, whose book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (which I partially reviewed) inspired her cookbook and led to the creation of the Weston A. Price foundation. In brief, Price traveled around the world in the 1930's and studied traditional cultures to see what gave them their perfect health. (The photos in the book are amazing). He came up with a number of recommendations, and this cookbook puts those recommendations into action.
The "cookbook" is actually much more than a cookbook. The first seventy-five or so pages review nutritional science and challenge many existing ideas, such as the lipid hypothesis. It is a book on how to cook in the traditional, healthy manner as much as a list of recipes and the book is loaded with a lot of information in the sidebars on each page.
The authors go into a great amount of detail on how to prepare ingredients for each recipe. For example, how to soak grains, such as wheat, to remove the problematic phytates; how to prepare bone broth; why you should consume raw milk and cream; how to (and why it is necessary) produce whey and homemade cream cheese; and how to cook with organ meats, among many other topics. There is a source of supplies in the back and while not strictly low carb, it is an overall healthy philosophy of eating. The cookbook shuns processed foods of all types (e.g., refined flour and processed sugar) and in all things seeks to emulate how traditional societies prepared foods for perfect health. While not completely low carb, most of what is in the cookbook aligns quite nicely with the low carb philosophy because the authors' philosophy on eating is very similar.
Personally, I found the cookbook very exciting to read and cannot wait to try out many of the recipes. But I do think it will be time consuming and require a lot of advanced planning. For example, to make biscuits, I would need to spend a week preparing a sour dough starter, plus soak the wheat for a few days until it starts to sprout; then dry the sprouted wheat, before grinding it. That might also take the better part of a week. I can see that this method of cooking will require a lot of advanced planning.
Jimmy Moore demonstrated that raw milk had almost no effect on his blood sugar levels, so I am very curious to see how sprouted or soaked wheat will effect my blood sugars. I suspect I will be pleasantly surprised.
All in all, this was a very worthwhile reading experience. I wish I had known what I know now when we were raising children, as I am sure I would have had a bigger influence on what was prepared for family meals. (For purposes of clarity, my wife did most of the cooking when the kids were at home and tried to cook in as healthy a manner as she knew how, based on the available information. There is no criticism of her cooking leveled or implied in this blog entry).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)