A simple, common sense approach to eating healthy

[Benko]

Ran across this:

http://authoritynutrition.com/low-carb- ... -and-menu/
which is labeled "low-carb, real-food based diet (LCRF)"

This spells out really nicely stuff that most agree is bad as well as things which work for many/most people, will not drive people nuts trying to follow.

No idea who these folks are, and I am NOT suggesting a low carb approach for everyone, but they have many of the basics right.  I would argue that it needs to be customized and people need to see for themselves (by trail and error) if they need to avoid eggs/dairy, nuts/seeds and the list of foods they list as maybe (potatoes, safe grains e.g. rice, oats, quinoa, and legumes)   One can customize the amount of carbs by eating more potatoes/sweat potatoes (or oatmeal/rice if you tolerate). 

The Basics
Eat: Meat, fish, eggs, vegetables, fruit, nuts, seeds, high-fat dairy, fats, healthy oils and maybe even some tubers and non-gluten grains.
Don’t Eat: Sugar, HFCS, wheat, seed oils, trans fats, artificial sweeteners, “diet”? and low-fat products and highly processed foods.

[Gumby]

Just popping my head in. Generally good advice for those who are consuming a Standard American Diet. However, Paul Jaminet (author of the Perfect Health Diet) — who also advocates a low carb "paleo" diet — has argued rather convincingly that daily consumption of starch is crucial to health.

See:

Dangers of Zero-Carb Diets, I: Can There Be a Carbohydrate Deficiency?

Dangers of Zero-Carb Diets, II: Mucus Deficiency and Gastrointestinal Cancers

Danger of Zero-Carb Diets III: Scurvy

Dangers of Zero-Carb Diets, IV: Kidney Stones

Jimmy Moore’s seminar on “safe starches”?: My reply

Safe Starches Symposium: Dr Ron Rosedale

How to Minimize Hyperglycemic Toxicity

Very Low-Carb Dieting: Are the Hormonal Changes Risk-free?

And what you typically find in the Paleo world is that people often go "Zero Carb" or Very Low Carb (VLC) using the guidelines in the link you provided. They end up with glucose deficiencies and all sorts of health problems in the long run (for instance, ketosis from VLC/zero carb often promotes fungal infections). Not coincidentally, some of Jaminet's biggest fans are those who had severe problems on zero carb and very low carb diets.

Some people (such as Dr. Ron Rosedale) consider glucose to be a toxin at any level, but Jaminet has shifted a lot of Paleos towards a mindset that glucose is a necessary nutrient. As with all nutrients, glucose becomes toxic after a certain threshold.

Additionally, there is some good evidence that wild starchy tubers were perhaps an important part of the hominid paleolithic-era diet. Some scholars believe the earliest and most primitive forms of trade between tribes may have centered around the trade of wild starchy tubers.

[MachineGhost]

I definitely do not agree that "safe starches" include oats, quinoia or legumes.  Just because you don't have diarreah or other gastrointestinal distress doesn't mean its not doing any damage to your gut lining setting up a ticking time bomb down the road.  In my opinion. the beneficial effects of the soluble fibers (which are non-trivial) do not offset the anti-nutrients and gut-hole-punching toxins.

Heck, quinoia alone is covered with saponins which definitely does cause holes in the gut.  Washing won't remove it completely.  I'm not particularly gut sensitive to anything other than jalapenos or spicy foods (and which I did not used to be), but even I notice the "uncomfortable stomach" effect after eating quinoia.

Dr. Rosedale is another useful village idiot.  Its better to say excess glucose is a toxin, because the body will still produce glucose from protein.  Just as you're still going to be breathing in oxygen that rusts and ages you.  Does he advocate to stop breathing as well?

Still, I'm pleased the mainstream center is moving to the lower-carb conservative right.  One cannot expect the mainstream to be the vanguard; that's like military intelligence.

[Dozha]

I don't believe Rosedale says that any amount of glucose is toxic.  As an md of course he knows that certain cells require it.  I think he does say, however, that we don't need much, and it's better not to eat your glucose--let your body produce what it needs when it needs it from amino acids and the glycerol backbone of triglycerides.  As I recall, he does say that no amount of ingested starch is necessary or safe.

[escafandro]

For some time now I'm with stomach upsets. So I'm looking to change my diet for a healthier one (I know absolutely nothing about food) and this seems simple enough.
Other than adding starch as suggested Gumby. Are there any other addition that could be considered?

[Benko]

For some time now I'm with stomach upsets. So I'm looking to change my diet for a healthier one (I know absolutely nothing about food) and this seems simple enough.
Other than adding starch as suggested Gumby. Are there any other addition that could be considered?

Stomach upsets could mean a wide variety of things.  You should probably have it checked out.

If they don't find anything, you may get relief from changing your diet, though you might need to look into more significant diet changes as the ones above or manily for people with healthy guts. 

[Gumby]

I don't believe Rosedale says that any amount of glucose is toxic.  As an md of course he knows that certain cells require it.  I think he does say, however, that we don't need much, and it's better not to eat your glucose--let your body produce what it needs when it needs it from amino acids and the glycerol backbone of triglycerides.  As I recall, he does say that no amount of ingested starch is necessary or safe.

Except that glucose deficiency is a real problem — even when blood sugar is normal — as it's hormonally controlled. And what you find is that a lot of low carb Paleos and very low carb dieters develop problems and fungal infections that arise from glucose deficiencies (see links in my previous post). As these individuals up their intake of rice, yams, plantains, taro, and potatoes (i.e. safe starches) they tend to see symptoms subside.

And in terms of the type of carbs worth consuming, Jaminet points out that the body seems to consider fructose more toxic than glucose.

We favor starchy plants over sugary plants for several reasons:

** Nutritional value. Glucose is more nutritious because, as noted above, it has structural uses throughout the human body. Fructose has no structural uses.

** Toxicity. Glucose is less toxic than fructose for several reasons. First, it is less reactive, less likely to glycate (fructate) proteins or promote lipid peroxidation. Second, Paracelsus’s rule tells us that the “dose makes the poison.”? Dietary glucose is distributed via the blood throughout the body, so that levels are low in any one location. Fructose, however, is concentrated in the liver.

The body’s evolved machinery for handling glucose and fructose is a good indicator of their relative healthfulness. Glucose is treated by our evolved physiology as a non-toxic nutrient: it is allowed free entry to the blood where it is accessible to all cells of the body. Fructose is treated by our evolved physiology as a toxin: it is shunted to the liver where it is rapidly disposed of.

The toxicity of fructose is well supported by a host of biochemical, biomedical, and epidemiological data. In general, the more fructose people consume, the worse their health. Dr. Robert Lustig spoke at the Ancestral Health Symposium on this topic.

While I think glucose should be favored over fructose, I don’t want to exaggerate the dangers of limited fructose consumption: fruits, berries, and other sugary plants are, in moderation, fine components of a healthful diet. But I see no obvious reason to tout them as superior to starchy plants.

Source: Jimmy Moore's seminar on "safe starches": My reply

And finally, potatoes are very nutrient dense and filling. People have actually done quite well on all-Potato diets:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2 ... -diet.html

(Though, I wouldn't try that unless I needed to survive a famine.)

Rice isn't all that nutritious, but it is a good source of glucose — which would certainly explain why Asian cultures have always made a point to eat small amount of white rice with virtually every meal.

[rocketdog]

I definitely do not agree that "safe starches" include oats, quinoia or legumes.  Just because you don't have diarreah or other gastrointestinal distress doesn't mean its not doing any damage to your gut lining setting up a ticking time bomb down the road.  In my opinion. the beneficial effects of the soluble fibers (which are non-trivial) do not offset the anti-nutrients and gut-hole-punching toxins.

Heck, quinoia alone is covered with saponins which definitely does cause holes in the gut.  Washing won't remove it completely.  I'm not particularly gut sensitive to anything other than jalapenos or spicy foods (and which I did not used to be), but even I notice the "uncomfortable stomach" effect after eating quinoia.

The pyramids of Egypt were built on bread-power, meaning without wheat we wouldn't have the only one of the "Seven Wonders of the World" that's still standing!

Quinoa has been consumed by the Andean culture for over 3,000 years.  They fed it to their warriors to give them strength and stamina in battle.  It's considered a "super-food" and is a source of complete protein. 

From Wikipedia:

Most quinoa sold commercially in North America has been processed to remove the saponin coating. The toxicity category rating of quinoa saponins treats them as mild eye and respiratory irritants and as a low gastrointestinal irritant. The risks associated with quinoa are minimal, provided it is properly prepared and leaves are not eaten to excess.

[Gumby]

Quinoa has been consumed by the Andean culture for over 3,000 years.  They fed it to their warriors to give them strength and stamina in battle.  It's considered a "super-food" and is a source of complete protein.

Sure, and they acid-soaked, fermented or germinated their quinoa before consuming it to neutralize many of the anti-nutrients — such as phytic acid. Nobody does that anymore (other than those familiar with WAPF).

[rocketdog]

Quinoa has been consumed by the Andean culture for over 3,000 years.  They fed it to their warriors to give them strength and stamina in battle.  It's considered a "super-food" and is a source of complete protein.

Sure, and they acid-soaked, fermented or germinated their quinoa before consuming it to neutralize many of the anti-nutrients — such as phytic acid. Nobody does that anymore (other than those familiar with WAPF).

I love this term "anti-nutrient" I keep seeing in these threads.  Did you know that there are so-called "anti-nutrients" in spinach, broccoli, brussel sprouts, cabbage and cauliflower?  Do you eat any of those foods? 

You're focusing on a single component of the food item.  You need to look at the net balance of all the nutrients as a whole.  It's like the PP -- you don't focus on one asset when it's going down, you look to see how the PP is doing overall as a whole.  You need to do that with food, too. 

[Gumby]

Did you know that there are so-called "anti-nutrients" in spinach, broccoli, brussel sprouts, cabbage and cauliflower?  Do you eat any of those foods? 

You're focusing on a single component of the food item.  You need to look at the net balance of all the nutrients as a whole.  It's like the PP -- you don't focus on one asset when it's going down, you look to see how the PP is doing overall as a whole.  You need to do that with food, too. 

You are correct. The benefit of vegetables usually outweighs the negatives of their anti-nutrients (though technically vegetables are best for phytochemicals/detoxification, not "nutrition" as most vegetables are not nutrient-dense). Most fruits and vegetables contain toxic phytates, lectins, oxalates, salicylates, phenols, glucosinolates, thiocyanates and cyanogenic glycosides. In small quantities, these toxins are harmless. In large quantities, these toxins can harm the gut and disrupt various hormones.

Phytic acid has a strong binding affinity to important minerals, such as calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc though the binding of calcium with phytic acid depends on pH and that ascorbic acid (vitamin C) can reduce phytic acid effects on iron. When a mineral binds to phytic acid, it becomes insoluble, precipitates and will be nonabsorbable in the intestines. This process can therefore contribute to mineral deficiencies in people whose diets rely on these foods for their mineral intake, such as those in developing countries
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytic_acid

Foods with high concentrations of lectins, such as beans, cereal grains, seeds, nuts, and potatoes, may be harmful if consumed in excess in uncooked or improperly cooked form. Adverse effects may include nutritional deficiencies, and immune (allergic) reactions. Possibly, most effects of lectins are due to gastrointestinal distress through interaction of the lectins with the gut epithelial cells. A recent in vitro study has suggested that the mechanism of lectin damage may occur by interfering with the repair of already-damaged epithelial cells.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectin

Salicylates are derivatives of salicylic acid that occur naturally in plants and serve as a natural immune hormone and preservative, protecting the plants against diseases, insects, fungi, and harmful bacteria. Salicylates can also be found in many medications, perfumes and preservatives. Both natural and synthetic salicylates can cause health problems in anyone when consumed in large doses. But for those who are salicylate intolerant, even small doses of salicylate can cause adverse reactions.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salicylate_sensitivity

The use of glucosinolate-containing crops as primary food source for animals has negative effects...Glucosinolates are well known for their toxic effects (mainly as goitrogens) in both humans and animals at high doses. In fact, they were even shown to alter animal behavior.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucosinolate

All of these plants have these [Cyanogenic] glycosides stored in the vacuole, but, if the plant is attacked, they are released and become activated by enzymes in the cytoplasm. These remove the sugar part of the molecule and release toxic hydrogen cyanide...An example of these is amygdalin from almonds. They can also be found in the fruits (and wilting leaves) of the rose family (including cherries, apples, plums, almonds, peaches, apricots, raspberries, and crabapples). Cassava, an important food plant in Africa and South America, contains cyanogenic glycosides and, therefore, has to be washed and ground under running water prior to consumption.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside

Yes, fruits and vegetables are good for you. But, their role is mainly to cleanse and detoxify our bodies — not to nourish it.

Unfortunately, anti-nutrients are a problem with grains. The anti-nutrients in grains is why you see malabsorption issues, such as rickets, in non-fortified grain eating cultures who don't properly prepare their grains.

[rocketdog]

Yes, fruits and vegetables are good for you. But, their role is mainly to cleanse and detoxify our bodies — not to nourish it.

So then how do you explain the increased longevity of strict vegetarians? 

[FarmerD]

Yes, fruits and vegetables are good for you. But, their role is mainly to cleanse and detoxify our bodies — not to nourish it.

So then how do you explain the increased longevity of strict vegetarians?

That is a myth.  In epidemiological studies vegetarians, on average, live longer.  However, vegetarians also tend to smoke much less and exercise more that the average American.  When you correct for these factors, it turns out vegetarians have the same or slightly higher mortality rates than meat eaters.  There have also been some fascinating studies of religeous groups who proscribe exercise and nonsmoking but no prohibitions on meat eating.  These groups demonstrate mortality rates as low or lower than vegetarians.

[Gumby]

Yes, fruits and vegetables are good for you. But, their role is mainly to cleanse and detoxify our bodies — not to nourish it.

So then how do you explain the increased longevity of strict vegetarians?

That is a myth.  In epidemiological studies vegetarians, on average, live longer.  However, vegetarians also tend to smoke much less and exercise more that the average American.  When you correct for these factors, it turns out vegetarians have the same or slightly higher mortality rates than meat eaters.  There have also been some fascinating studies of religeous groups who proscribe exercise and nonsmoking but no prohibitions on meat eating.  These groups demonstrate mortality rates as low or lower than vegetarians.

Exactly. It's known as the Healthy User bias...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_user_bias

For instance, rocketdog, you say you trained, and ran a marathon, shortly after becoming a vegetarian. In other words the training and other lifestyle changes you made to improve your health had nothing to do with diet. That's what tends to happen when people change their diet — they make other lifestyle changes that also have a measurable effect.

Actually, the adjusted vegetarian scores really aren't very impressive considering they are equal to average factory-farmed SAD meat eaters. Yikes.

[rocketdog]

There have also been some fascinating studies of religeous groups who proscribe exercise and nonsmoking but no prohibitions on meat eating.  These groups demonstrate mortality rates as low or lower than vegetarians.

Don't discount the social bonding aspect of religion.  That's part of the reason married people live longer than single people.  So I suspect the social bonding is largely off-setting any negatives related to their meat eating. 

Also don't discount quality of life.  I'd rather have a healthy, active 80 years than an extra 10 years spent recovering from heart surgery or pumping myself full of all manner of medications to mitigate the damage I did to myself with a diet high in saturated animal fats. 

[smurff]

Don't discount the social bonding aspect of religion.  That's part of the reason married people live longer than single people.

Lots of studies that make this claim were only done with men.  There does not appear to be a  relationship between marital status per se and longevity for women.  Moreover:

Now let me tell you the results of what is probably the longest-running study of longevity ever conducted. It is the Terman Life-Cycle Study, started in 1921. The 1,528 men and women, who were 11-years old when the study started, have been followed for as long as they lived. Two groups of people lived the longest: those who got married and stayed married, and those who stayed single. People who divorced, or who divorced and remarried, had shorter lives. What mattered was consistency, not marriage. The results were the same for the men and the women.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/liv ... ive-longer