About 4 days ago, I read an article on food cravings in one of my naturopathic magazines. According to the authors, eating 1.6-1.8gm of Protein per kilo of weight prevents cravings. I've read this before, but for some reason I assumed that they meant per kilo of *ideal* weight...but no...they mean per kilo of current weight because it is your current weight that determines the protein needs which affect the cravings.

Ok, so I've been doing an experiment for the last few days since I've also been dealing with food cravings. Instead of keeping my protein at 60gm, I've upped it to 150gm. In order to get the protein in, I'm doing the liquid Protein shots (0 carbs, 200 calories, 50gm protein) twice a day to boost the protein since I can't get 100gm protein in 400 calories of 'food'.

My calories are still around 1200 because the cravings and even the desire to eat are gone and I've dropped 2 lb in the last 4 days! I literally don't even feel like eating!

Oh...the article also said that if someone is doing weight building exercises, their protein needs would be higher.

.

<sigh>

For those who actually have an interest in low carbing, I would suggest you get ahold of the books by Dr. Bernstein, Gary Taubes and Malcom Kendricks. There are other books if you do a bit of researching.

I think you'll find that there is no truth to the claims that low carb is bad for you. If you're the type who believes intelligence and knowledge is defined by how many degrees a person holds, then you probably shouldn't waste your time. If you believe that someone doesn't have the right to charge what they're worth without it being evidence that they're just in it for the money and have no concern for their patients, as the previous poster does about Dr. Bernstein, then you probably shouldn't waste your time.

Low carb works. Low carb is not dangerous, nor does it lessen mental acuity. You can get all your nutrition in Protein and vegetables. The brain does not need carbs...it needs glucose which can be obtained by eating as little as 60gm protein per day. If low carb is so 'dangerous', then the only logical assumption is that all of your surgeons are irresponsible for telling you to go low carb.

.

<sigh>

For those who actually have an interest in low carbing, I would suggest you get ahold of the books by Dr. Bernstein, Gary Taubes and Malcom Kendricks. There are other books if you do a bit of researching.

I think you'll find that there is no truth to the claims that low carb is bad for you. If you're the type who believes intelligence and knowledge is defined by how many degrees a person holds, then you probably shouldn't waste your time. If you believe that someone doesn't have the right to charge what they're worth without it being evidence that they're just in it for the money and have no concern for their patients, as the previous poster does about Dr. Bernstein, then you probably shouldn't waste your time.

Low carb works. Low carb is not dangerous, nor does it lessen mental acuity. You can get all your nutrition in Protein and vegetables. The brain does not need carbs...it needs glucose which can be obtained by eating as little as 60gm protein per day. If low carb is so 'dangerous', then the only logical assumption is that all of your surgeons are irresponsible for telling you to go low carb.

'nuf said. To be honest I'm getting a bit sick of the anti-low carb people who feel the need to trash low carb...even if done in a subtle 'well meaning' way.

If anyone has questions, feel free to e-mail me at melody@dmci.net. Otherwise, I think I'm done with the LBT.

.

Ok, everyone without an extreme bias to one view-point, you'll be able to refer to my first post on this thread. I did not "trash" low-carb diets. I did not say that it was "bad for you," as elfie claims I have. I have never claimed that it was "dangerous," again as elfie seems to imagine. In fact, you'll see that I said that it can lead to "quick and satisfying weight loss" and I later said that I do not think nor have I ever "said that low-carb is bad." I've also never told people to stop their low-carb diet. Not once. In fact, I said that at most, people might want to consider giving it a break for a week before they're taking a challenging test, based on the research that has come out about low-carb's cognitive impacts. Does that sound like someone who's trying to get people to stop their low-carb diet altogether? I said that there is research that will show that low-carb can lead to a healthier life-style. All that I have been saying is that there are some risks to dieters' health and I based this view on current research.

I didn't address the original post to the member above, I only said to low-carbers in general that there may be some negative impacts of low-carb dieting if protein is eaten in excess and if it all comes from animal sources. I ask all reasonable people: is this really trashing the diet? I think that such people will agree that it is not. If it's gotten to the point that she is so attached to the diet that a light word of caution to other people drives her to absurd accusations of malign motives, conspiracies to keep people fat, and scare-tactics, and now she feels she will have to leave the forum altogether, that is unfortunate but it is not my decision or concern. I question how much of her self-esteem is tied up with this diet. It's akin to people who can't hear moderate criticism of a religious organization that they belong to without becoming irate. She defends the diet against this slight criticism as strongly as someone defending their own reputation from vicious slander. I assure you that if I ever adopt a particular diet-plan and it gets a little scrutiny, I'll be able to handle it.

Wanted to post this before I go. It's mainly focused on diabetics, but does have some of the info I've posted before if you scroll down and read through it:

• We observed no signifcant adverse renal effects of high Protein consumption in women who had normal renal function at baseline. In addition, when we separately analyzed nondairy anima, dairy and vegetable protein intake, we found no evidence of a detrimental effect of animal protein compared with vegetable protein.
• In short, eating well below the 130 grams of carbs ignorant dietitians will tell you are essential for brain function, works fine. Memory was not affected, and mood improved.
• Gary Taubes' book, published in October of 2007, Good Calories/Bad Calories, Taubes provides descriptions and analyses of hundreds of nutritional studies performed since the 1940s. He also cites several well-conducted studies whose results were suppressed because they didn't match what diet authorities thought the results should be (So much for putting faith in the 'experts'.)

There are numerous other links to other sites and other studies to show how the medical community has *LIED* to people about low carb diets by deliberately omitting studies that don't fit in with their preconceived expectations.

If you're a diabetic, there is a *ton* of information here. It's one of my favorite sites. Oh, and there's a link to also help you figure out how much protein you need...and that varies by individual.

It's been fun.

.

So, my last post has mysteriously disappeared. Oh well. And you keep breaking your promise, elfie. Since you claimed that you were done with LBT, I closed all the browser windows that I had open of studies demonstrating potential risks of low-carb/high-fat diets. I'll have to go back to the research database to retrieve them again. Even if you do eventually, some day, maybe, leave LBT,-- seeing as criticism of a diet is actually causing you "stress in your life" --I'll cite the studies in another post for other people to read.

You choose to rely on the beliefs of traditional medicine. I'm willing to step outside the box and read what others (who also stepped outside the box) have to say and read the research it's based on.

You denigrate "traditional science" as if it were non-progressive and "traditional" in the pejorative-sense of the word. This shows how little you understand science. Science is the very embodiment of progress. Every published study is an attempt to further the human understanding of truth. You try to subtly insult me by saying that I refuse to think outside of the box. There is no need to step outside the "box" of statistically-tested and verifiable science to answer empirical questions, as this box is infinite in size. Each advancement in science leads to another possible advancement. Traditional scientific methods put humans on the moon. Thanks to traditional science, we have the polio vaccine and the Hubble Telescope to look at the "edge" of the universe. Traditional scientists have mapped the entire human-genome, creating new potentials for cancer-curing drugs. The rate of discoveries using the traditional scientific method is exponential. The computer you use to visit LBT; the chemically-treated structure housing you; the vehicle you use for transportation--they all exist because of traditional science. Traditional science produces results.

Go ahead; applaud yourself for stepping outside the box of traditional science. (I guess we should also applaud the insane for stepping outside the box of rationality! After all, stepping outside the box is always a virtue and being accused of not doing so is a real insult, didn't you know?) And go ahead; consult journalists for answers on scientific questions and continue to believe that you have attained an absolute understanding of science, even while the experts are yet undecided. Fortunately, new scientific discoveries don't depend on what "non-traditionalists" do or believe. Non-traditionalists have never produced comparable results. When I have a scientific question--such as: "does this diet have any negative effects?"--I look directly to scientists to answer it. I don't get it through a filter of financially-invested practitioners and unqualified journalists. I verify my practitioner's advice with a comprehensive examination of the primary sources. Yes, a doctorate in science is actually a necessary qualification to establish scientific expertise. Graduate degrees train experts in their field and in scientific methods, and test their knowledge. To you, that's elitism. To reasonable people, that's just common sense.

To be honest I'm getting a bit sick of the anti-low carb people who feel the need to trash low carb...even if done in a subtle 'well meaning' way.

You keep writing as if I'm saying that low-carb diets are bad. I was only informing people of potential risks of an extreme restriction of carbs, and of the excessive consumption of Protein. You said that I'm "trashing" low-carb diets. Where have I done anything approaching trashing the diet? Again, you're willfully misrepresenting what I've written. I don't need to repeat all that I've said in favour of low-carb diets. I made it quite clear that I find it an effective way to lose weight at least in the short-term. Whether most people will maintain a very low-carb diet for the rest of their lives is in question. Again, I've come to this conclusion not only from all of the low-carb dieters that I personally know (being anecdotal evidence, I'm not using this to support my argument), but also from some studies that demonstrate the same doubts. (I, myself, might consider using a moderately low-carb, low-fat diet temporarily if I ever need to lose weight more quickly).

You also referred to my slight cautions as a "subtle" and falsely "well-meaning" trashing of low-carb diets. Meaning that, I'm just like all the others of the "anti-low-carb crowd," as you call them, but I'm disguising my hatred for low-carb diets by being subtle and pretending to be well-meaning. Aside from the fact that this comes off as paranoid (along with your accusation that my kind want to scare people into eating carbs to make them fat again), what your statements are really saying is that, in order to satisfy you, there is no way to speak about low-carb diets other than positively. Think about it. If someone comes out harshly against low-carb diets, then obviously you'll say that they're a member of an "anti-low-carb" conspiracy to make people fat again. But, if someone briefly mentions potential risks and healthier ways to continue on a low-carb diet… then they too are anti-low-carb and they're just being sneaky about it. So, how can a person discuss the potential risks of low-carb diets in a way that will satisfy you as to their good motives? Well, they can't. There's no way to escape your accusations of being a conspirator against low-carbs, except by praising low-carb diets with no caveats. And, according to you, people shouldn't even be discussing potential risks; didn't we know that low-carb diets are definitely "healthy for everyone?"

Wow this is getting out of hand. Elfie started this post to let people know that by increasing your protein you may be able to curb your cravings. This didn't need to turn into a debate about low carb / high protein diets. I eat low carb and I am a very productive and highly intelligent person. I have also lost all of my weight plus 20 pounds in less than 11 months with alot of elfies help. I started reading her posts before I was banded. Please dont leave us elfie.

Wow this is getting out of hand. Elfie started this post to let people know that by increasing your Protein you may be able to curb your cravings. This didn't need to turn into a debate about low carb / high protein diets. I eat low carb and I am a very productive and highly intelligent person. I have also lost all of my weight plus 20 pounds in less than 11 months with alot of elfies help. I started reading her posts before I was banded. Please dont leave us elfie.

I agree that this didn't need to turn into a debate. If you refer to my original post, you'll see that I never had any intention of arguing with anyone. I didn't direct the post at elfie. Also, I don't understand why you're telling me about the efficacy of the diet, as if I were claiming otherwise. I, myself, have said repeatedly that low-carb diets can help people lose weight quickly. I never said that elfie was wrong in this respect.

I also never claimed that eating low-carbs makes you unhealthy or stupid. Please use your high intelligence to understand the statements posted. I said that the original study demonstrated a difference in the memory and response times of low-carb dieters before, during, and after their diets (and in comparison to low-calorie diets). This is only one study. There are others that demonstrate negative effects. There are also those that demonstrate positive effects of low-carb diets on overall health compared to obesity. I say this after reviewing the research database at my university. My essential point is that the science on low-carb dieting is yet inconclusive, and anyone claiming to know what is "absolutely true" is pretending or has god-like omniscience.

In the original post, I only said that people should be aware of some studies that show potential risks to consuming too much protein. That's all. Then, she responds as if I've personally attacked her or "trashed" low-carb diets. She also accused me of being a part of the "anti-low carb" crowd that wants to get people eating carbs and make them fat again. This is not a reasonable reaction. Being stressed because people mention the potential risks of a diet-plan is also not reasonable behaviour.

Also, I never asked elfie to leave the forum. She said that she would because she couldn't handle criticism of a diet. Well, alright. As I said, I couldn't imagine reacting in this way if people discussed the potential risks of a diet that I happened to be on, unless they were targeting me in particular. Anyhow, I'm really doubting that she will in fact leave or that she ever really intended to leave. She keeps coming back to post, and each time saying that it will be her last post.

And you keep breaking your promise, elfie. .

Please address the issues instead of personal attacks. Whether or not I leave is my business.

You denigrate "traditional science" as if it were non-progressive and "traditional" in the pejorative-sense of the word. This shows how little you understand science. Science is the very embodiment of progress.

No' date=' science is not the embodiment of progress. One hopes it is that...but too often, the studies themselves are faulty. I have no problem with traditional science, but I don't place my life entirely in its hands...particularly when I can go read the original studies and see how shaky they are to begin with. Pharmaceutical companies are constantly doing studies (because they're required to) and we all know the spin they put on their findings...and how many drugs have been pulled off the market when it was discovered the companies weren't quite truthful in their findings.

There is no need to step outside the "box" of statistically-tested and verifiable science to answer empirical questions, as this box is infinite in size.

If the science was always interested in the truth, that might be so...but many studies are done for a specific purpose...to push a specific agenda. I'll be honest and admit that when I look at low carb studies I view them just as skeptically for the same reason.

And go ahead; consult journalists for answers on scientific questions

One does not have to be a scientist in order to read their studies and come to logical conclusions. Putting ones faith in someone just because they have all the right little letters after their name is' date=' in my opinion, foolish. Degrees do not confer open mindedness or true intelligence. Some of the most intelligent people I know have nothing beyond a bachelor's degree. I've met more than my fair share of close minded idiots with doctorates, so we'll just have to disagree on the value of that education.

You keep writing as if I'm saying that low-carb diets are bad. I was only informing people of potential risks of an extreme restriction of carbs, and of the excessive consumption of Protein.

Except that the risks you're quoting aren't verifiable. Experts in the field of nephrology say there is no evidence that a high protein diet harms healthy kidneys. Also, despite spending several days searching, I could find no reputable source study that proved that low carb caused cognitive deficits...although I did find several sites claiming this as fact with no source.

Whether most people will maintain a very low-carb diet for the rest of their lives is in question.

The same can be said of Weight Watchers or any other diet. It's why there are so many fat people in the world. Some will stick to the WOE that works for them...some won't.

And' date=' according to you, people shouldn't even be discussing potential risks; didn't we know that low-carb diets are definitely "healthy for [u']everyone[/u]?"

I have no problem discussion potential risks...when they're based in fact. But telling people that eating a high protein diet will lead to kidney problems goes against what the nephrology experts are saying.

There is no evidence to back up the belief that a low carb diet results in reduce cognitive abilities either.

Please...if you have the studies, post them. I would truly be interested in reading them. Bernstein, Kendricks, Eades and Taubes do a very good job of listing the studies in their books that back up their claims that a low carb diet, even one that is all animal protein, is healthy and does not lead to cardiovascular disease, etc. Don't just believe them. Go find the studies and read them and come to your own conclusions.

I would like to bring up the 20 Harvard study that concluded in 2006 that so many like to use as their source that low carb diets are bad. The thing to keep in mind is that this was a questionnaire study. So the validity of the study is questionable since there is no way to verify the veracity of questionnaire responses. There's also the issue of bias. Their report says that there was an insignificant difference in cardiovascular risk between those who ate animal protein vs vegetable protein. What's interesting is that despite this finding, their conclusion still says 'vegetable protein' is better.

Out of curiosity, I went and did a search and discovered that this study is used by both the pro-low carb and anti-low carb factions. They just all put their own spin on it.

Now, I think it's pretty apparent to anyone still reading that you and I will never see eye to eye because you believe if someone doesn't have a bunch of tiny letters after their name, then they have nothing useful to say. While these are the people doing the studies, they do publish those studies in detail and it is possible for intelligent people with a background in the sciences (which Taubes has by the way) to read the reports and verify the accuracy of those conclusions. I don't have Taubes science knowledge, but I can read the studies, read the conclusions of the researchers and read Taubes conclusions and why he disagrees...and even come to my own conclusions.

Now, I am more than happy to discuss *facts* but in a civil manner. So please feel free to post your sources.

.

Ok...I did just find a study in a 2009 issue of Appetite (a science journal) that many other sites use as their source for cognitive impairment as a result of low carb. What I've pulled from this so far is:

The study was on a small group of 19 women...some following low carb, some following a traditional ADA diet.

The low carb diet was *zero* carbs for the first week - no nuts, no eggs, no cheese, no vegetables...because all of these do contain trace amounts of carbohydrates. The first point I'd like to make is that I don't know of any low carb diet that restricts these items. Even Atkins, requires people to eat 2 cups of salad type vegies during the first 2 induction weeks and cheese and eggs are allowed and encouraged.

The second week they could add 5-8gm of carbs a day. Again, this means severely limiting all vegetables, eggs, and cheese.

The third week they could go 'all the way' up to 10-16 grams. Still below the 20gm Atkins allows during the induction (first 2 weeks) phase. By the third week on Atkins, most people are on their way up to 30gm...significantly higher than this small study group.

At the end of week 1, researchers found no difference in cognitive ability between the two groups. At the end of week 2 and 3 they found some minor differences...but there are a couple things to keep in mind. First, the body will make glucose for the brain if it is denied carbohydrates, but it takes time for this to happen. So, in the short term (1-2 weeks), there may be some *slight* impairment, but over time the body adapts and the brain once again gets the glucose it needs. Second, the slight cognitive differences found in weeks 2 and 3...well, yes, these people weren't getting any carbs at all so their body was probably going bonkers. Atkins is the most restrictive low carb diet (to begin with) and even he starts with a minimum of 20 carbs.

Interestingly, despite the above, the low-carb group actually consistently performed better on a task requiring sustained attention...and the researchers found that the ADA group did worse on a measure of confusion.

This study did not follow these women beyond 3 weeks or on a normal low carb diet of 30-60gm per day.

*OK, I should add that there are people eating what they call a 'primal' diet which is basically Protein and fat...pretty much zero carb. After they get acclimated to it and their bodies switch from producing glucose from protein instead of carbs, results seem to show a return to the previous cognitive levels. Some experience better because the carb fog is gone (their expression). Personally, I've given up just about everything else and I'm keeping my vegies!

.

We've gotten quite a bit off topic, so I thought I'd post an update to my original post since I've been doing increased Protein for about 9 days now. I'm happy to say that my desire to eat really seems to be gone as a result of the increased protein. Since I am a diabetic and always at risk for impaired kidneys, I did call my doc ahead of time to make sure my recent lab work verified that I had no kidney impairment...something she keeps a close eye on.

Now what to do with the Hoodia that just arrived in today's mail. I'd like to try it but I'm kind of going with the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' approach for now since I'm soooo close (2 lbs) to Onederland.