View Full Version : Sticking with my Diet Plan
I am taking a week long section hike with some friends and I am concerned about how to pack for my meals since I have been on a low carb diet preparing for my hikes.
I just went down 30 pounds and have plans to hopefully lose 5 more in the next 3 weeks which is essentially my pack weight.
Are there any low or good carb recipes out there or anyone else been in this situation on the trail? I have low carb wraps and bars and always eggs for breakfast, it is mainly for my suppers I am most worried about.
if you try to maintain your low carb diet while hiking you won't have the energy to hike like you should. You will be crawling down the trail. Your friends will always have to stop and wait for you to catch up. I would forget about the diet while on the trail just don't go overboard. You will still loose weight.
Panzer
Danielsen
09-27-2010, 15:33
You can be just fine on a low carb diet on the trail, depending on how well your body has adjusted to ketogenic metabolism (heck, you could even have MORE energy than most thru-hikers). I keep up a 4000+ calorie a day lifestyle (hiking, running, cycling, active at work) on a low-to-no-carb diet and I do fine, and many ancient cultures undertook great migrations on similarly low-carb diets.
Basically, you're going to need to pack a lot of fat calories. Seeing as fat is more calorie-dense than carbohydrate, you could potentially work this to your advantage. Experiment with ghee, olive oil, coconut oil, and nut butters and see how much of each of them you can add into a "trail diet" of sorts to maximize calories, and then figure out how to prepack the amounts you'll need in between maildrop points (most of these work well with a bounce box since they take forever to go bad). Dry sausage is also very calorie-dense and packs some protein. Drinking a tea with gelatin mixed in once or twice a day delivers extra collagen protein (the kind your joints are made of). Canned fish like sardines aren't for everyone, but they're also a good trail food. Baking with nut flours can also yield some delicious bread-type foods, though they don't keep very long. Trail mix that goes heavy on various nuts is also good, though if you're consuming large amounts of omega-6 rich nuts be sure that you're hitting the olive oil (or fish oil) as well.
If you don't already do so, consider incorporating intermittent fasting into your life. Nothing else really streamlines your metabolism and accustoms your body to switching from blood sugar to ketones like fasting, and once you're efficient at doing so it's easy to get by on less when you're on the trail and stock up the calories when you're in town, as you can better deal with fluctuations in calorie intake.
IronGutsTommy
09-27-2010, 16:15
im diabetic and usually limit my carbs, but trail needs are alot different than everyday needs. more carbs and fatty foods are much needed fuel. its only a week, you wont make or break a successful 30 lb loss in one week. dinner carbs from pasta etc i wouldnt worry about. just avoid the carbs and simple sugars found in popular snacks like candy bars and the like. pack a decent gorp or just go the smoked almonds route.
LaurieAnn
09-27-2010, 16:21
im diabetic and usually limit my carbs, but trail needs are alot different than everyday needs. more carbs and fatty foods are much needed fuel. its only a week, you wont make or break a successful 30 lb loss in one week. dinner carbs from pasta etc i wouldnt worry about. just avoid the carbs and simple sugars found in popular snacks like candy bars and the like. pack a decent gorp or just go the smoked almonds route.
I am diabetic as well and and I try to ensure that I have good complex carbs on the trail. If not, I hit the wall and my blood sugar crashes hard. I too use things like nuts, dried chickpea snacks and such to keep the body in balance. Carbs provide the fuel you need at the time and proteins provide the fuel you need to repair your muscles.
IronGutsTommy
09-27-2010, 16:27
wow laurie didnt realize not only are we fellow foodies but fellow diabetics as well. yep complex carbs over simple sugars any day
LaurieAnn
09-27-2010, 17:44
wow laurie didnt realize not only are we fellow foodies but fellow diabetics as well. yep complex carbs over simple sugars any day
I was diagnosed in January 2009. I think being diabetic is a bit tough on a foodie but have learned how to enjoy great foods while not compromising health. Funny, I tend to be as fussy about the management as I am about cooking. My endocrinologist teases me and calls me "the poster child for proper control" and apparently I'm a rarity. So many people don't take it seriously.
In hindsight, having been undiagnosed for some time, I can clearly see why I only felt good when hiking. It was the only time, pre-diagnosis, where my body was functioning properly and the carb intake was in balance with what my body was doing.
Even for non-diabetics it is important to have the proper balance on the trail or health can suffer. Considerations include energy needs, weight maintenance, muscle health and nutrients. Being diabetic did educate me considerably on how people's bodies use food for fuel.
Had I not become pregnant, I would have headed back to University this month and started working toward my PhD in Food and Nutrition. I want to eventually become a nutritionist for diabetics. I do a lot of work on a website for a Dr. Heather Keller (http://www.drheatherkeller.com/background.htm) who is an amazing resource for me both personally and professionally. I'll be starting in a year or so through the University's online education program and then heading back to on-site classes when Kaia is a bit older.
LaurieAnn
09-27-2010, 17:51
Kimme... another thing you can look at with carbs is their glycemic index. A carb such as quinoa or lentils will give you a much slower and steady release of energy than a candy bar.
Danielsen... I have to respectfully disagree about some of what you say.
Ketones... spilling ketones like many of these low-carb diets promote is NOT a healthy thing. In fact ketones can be quite a dangerous thing. Ketones are a sign of improper nutrition and body starvation. Ketones are an acid which can be harmful to the body if allowed to accumulate.
Large fasts are also bad for metabolism. That type of fasting will do the opposite of kick-start your metabolism... it will slow it and the body will go into a "starvation" mode where it stores calories rather than use them effectively.
if you try to maintain your low carb diet while hiking you won't have the energy to hike like you should. You will be crawling down the trail. Your friends will always have to stop and wait for you to catch up. I would forget about the diet while on the trail just don't go overboard. You will still loose weight.
PanzerSmart Fella:sun
Danielsen
09-27-2010, 20:17
Danielsen... I have to respectfully disagree about some of what you say.
Ketones... spilling ketones like many of these low-carb diets promote is NOT a healthy thing. In fact ketones can be quite a dangerous thing. Ketones are a sign of improper nutrition and body starvation. Ketones are an acid which can be harmful to the body if allowed to accumulate.
Large fasts are also bad for metabolism. That type of fasting will do the opposite of kick-start your metabolism... it will slow it and the body will go into a "starvation" mode where it stores calories rather than use them effectively.
I'm going to have to disagree in return. Ketone accumulation and the acidic state it results in is called Ketoacidosis (you probably know this) and is, as you say, dangerous, but this is primarily a concern for diabetics such as yourself. In the same way that your body has trouble regulating the sugar in your blood, it will also have trouble regulating the ketones in your blood if you enter a ketogenic state.
For the average person's metabolism, regulating ketones is not, in theory, any more difficult than regulating blood sugar. Because most people today spend so little (if any) time in ketosis, adapting to it initially can introduce symptoms like headaches, low energy, and funny-smelling breath (from the ketones being expelled), mostly due to far more ketones being initially produced than necessary. The body has to "learn," in effect, how to regulate ketone production. Once it does, ketosis is a perfectly healthy metabolic state, and many parts of your body will utilize ketones just as efficiently (or moreso) for energy as blood sugar. I would know as I spend a good amount of time there, including a lot of athletic activity.
Yes, ketones are toxic and harmful if they accumulate, but the same is true of blood sugar. That's why the body regulates blood sugar through insulin, and ketones through excretion (this is why low-carb dieters have been known to trip breathalyzers despite not drinking; some excess ketones are excreted through the lungs). After a few weeks of regular dips into ketosis the body stops over-producing them and accumulation becomes much less of a concern.
Now, I agree that long-term fasts are not beneficial for increasing one's metabolism, and I advise against them as well. I was referring specifically to "intermittent fasting," which generally involves fasts of no longer than 30 hours, usually far less (I typically utilize 14-18 hour fasts). These fasts simply downregulate insulin production and increase the energy efficiency of the metabolism. Overall calorie intake is generally the same: I might fast a few times a week but I still average about 4000 cal/day over the course of the whole 7 days. I have more energy and I recover faster, so it's clearly not doing me or any of the others who utilize intermittent fasting to positive effect either for optimizing metabolism or for weight loss any harm.
When I go ahead and indulge in foods that upregulate insulin once in a while (hard to resist a fresh apple pie), I notice a drop in energy levels until after my next fast. The fasting speeds my body's return to its preferred fat-burning state.
Now I'm not expecting anyone to necessarily agree with or believe anything I say on nutrition (and no one ever should blindly believe anything anyone says on the topic, really, as there's way too much BS out there to sort through) but the fact is that ketosis is not dangerous for most, and ketones are no more harmful than the blood sugar most modern carb-burning humans utilize as their primary energy source. I wouldn't give someone advice I thought would harm them. I am my own guinea pig on this topic and I have been impressed with the benefits I've observed in my own life from these tactics, and that's why I recommend them. Since the known biochemistry matches my experiences exactly, I'm pretty confident in what I have to say about it.
For the average person's metabolism, regulating ketones is not, in theory, any more difficult than regulating blood sugar.
From Dr. Eades blog on ketones:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/metabolism-and-ketosis/
(and as a side question, when you say 'low-carb' just how low is that?)
Danielsen
09-27-2010, 22:56
(and as a side question, when you say 'low-carb' just how low is that?)
Some days, I get a good dose of milk sugars, fructose from fruits (especially blueberries and the raspberries from our yard) and green leafy veggies and hot peppers, probably maxing out around 200 grams in any given day. Most days it's probably less than 60 grams, and some days are zero carb. If I averaged out the amounts over a length of time it would probably divide to about 60/30/10 (fat/protein/carbohydrate). I use plenty of dairy since it doesn't give me problems, but any gluten revives my eczema and makes my joints hurt.
LaurieAnn
09-27-2010, 23:14
Danielsen there is a big difference between a state of ketoacidosis and passing ketones. The former can be life-threatening (and it is a diabetic thing) and that latter (for anyone) just isn't healthy. Also the amount of fat consumption (60) is quite bad for your health over the long term.
The funny smelling breath is from the acetone part of the ketone being released. Using ketones for energy isn't a good thing and can cause adverse effects. While our bodies and brains will function on ketones it's not exactly advisable. When the body burns excess amounts of fat to get energy your body is burning fat to get energy the moderate to excessive amounts of ketones in your urine are dangerous. They upset the chemical balance of the blood and the acidity of the body. That acid can also build up in your tissue and be secreted in your sweat. That's why people first starting out on these low/no carb diets often have an unusual smell to their breath and skin.
What ever happened to a properly balanced diet and exercise? Why is it that people have to go on these fad diets like low-carbing? Granted I feel that the average North American consumes way too many carbs. It does seem to me that the high-fat, low carb Atkins way of doing things is what probably lead to the man's heart attack. And having 60 percent fat in the diet isn't healthy either. In the long run that can have serious side effects on organs such as the heart and liver.
And before one embarks on a low-carb or no-carb diet they should have their blood glucose levels checked.... why? Because if they are an undiagnosed diabetic they could cause even greater harm to their body. The liver should also be monitored and one should speak with their doctor about a cut off point for the amount of ketones that are safe for that individual. Also if a low/no carb diet isn't done properly then there can be issues with muscle wasting.
Danielsen
09-27-2010, 23:33
Danielsen there is a big difference between a state of ketoacidosis and passing ketones. The former can be life-threatening and that latter just isn't healthy. Also the amount of fat consumption (60) is quite bad for your health over the long term.
The funny smelling breath is from the acetone part of the ketone being released.
What ever happened to a properly balanced diet and exercise? Why is it that people have to go on these fad diets like low-carbing? Granted I feel that the average North American consumes way too many carbs. It does seem to me that the high-fat, low carb Atkins way of doing things is what probably lead to the man's heart attack.
If by "passing ketones" you mean what the body does when it's unaccustomed to Ketosis, that's not unhealthy. Once it gets adjusted it won't pass them anymore, it'll just burn them as fuel. And I'm sorry, but consuming healthy natural fats (saturates, monounsaturates, and limited polyunsaturates) has never been shown to be unhealthy. You can trace all of that fat=bad dogma back to Ancel Keys and a congress heavily invested in the grain industry several decades ago. There's no legitimate science behind it.
I am eating a properly balanced diet and excersizing quite a bit. From a historical perspective, humans eating grains and consuming carbohydrates for their primary energy source are, rather, the "fad diets" in this comparison. 4 million years of genetic adaptation has not been significantly altered by 10,000 years of agriculture. I eat according to what anthropology applied with reasoning tells me is "natural food" for humans, and what the biochemistry backs up. If I had a cat, I would not feed it grain-based kibbles either; what cat in the wild ever munched a head of barley? I do not eat according to any diets or rules. I eat what makes me feel good, and if it does that despite the pounding I give my body, something must be going right.
I've had this conversation enough times to know that we're probably not going to come to a common perspective on this. If your eating habits work for you, great. I wish you a long and healthy life.
But let's get one fact straight: Dr. Atkins did not, as some say, die of a heart attack. He died of a head injury after slipping on ice. This is a widely available historical fact. At the time of his death he was dealing with some cardiac issues after a heart attack which he survived. This attack was attributed to a chronic infection. Aside from the inspection, several physicians noted that he was in excellent cardiovascular health for a man his age and that the attack was unlikely to be related to his diet, including a member of the American Heart Association's board of directors (a group that is notoriously opposed to low-carb diets). So there's not much of an example to be made of Robert Atkins against high-fat low-carb diets.
Danielsen
09-27-2010, 23:35
I don't know why that last paragraph includes the fragment "aside from the inspection." It's getting late, and I can tell. :o
Thank you Daniel and Laurie for your insight tips etc... that was exactly the information I was looking for and when I have a few more minutes I will expand on my ideas.
Tommy - you too make sense where I should not worry too much. My thing is I have worked for almost three months getting my appetite and cravings under control as well as portion sizes that I am afraid that not keeping my strict regimen will cause me to back slide once I get home. Also this section hike is just prep for my palns on a thru hike!
LaurieAnn
09-27-2010, 23:51
Sorry I stand corrected.
There is also evidence that such a diet can affect performance adversely because of the low muscle glycogen levels even over the long term. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Ketogenic diets are used for prevent seizures though because of the effect they have on the brain.
PS I hope you aren't offended by the debate and I must further apologize for not fact checking the heart business about Dr. Atkins. Perhaps we should take the debate off board so that we don't continue to hijack the thread? I'm quite interested in learning from this conversation.
Pretty interesting reading actually.
Ghee as a flavoring,( I had it with grits) and added it to our meals. Dehydrated beans heated with water and cheese for supper on a pita or wrap and one package of taco bell sauce. Very filling. A great starter lunch is fresh avocado smashed on a wheat bread sub roll with sunflower seeds on top of the avocado. Tuna packet with la relish packet and one third of thel low cal mayo packet and pepper is a great lunch. Peanuts and cashews (unsalted for me) for snacks. I don't like sweets so this is what I do but I always carry one orange and eat it on day 2. The sunflower seeds without the seed part were the snack that got grabbed up first. Dried papaya was a big hit too. The fiber one bars made everyone gassy so we were done with those pretty quickly. I hike with a vegetarian so I got alot of ideas from her.
the amount of fat consumption (60) is quite bad for your health over the long term.
The funny smelling breath is from the acetone part of the ketone being released. Using ketones for energy isn't a good thing and can cause adverse effects. While our bodies and brains will function on ketones it's not exactly advisable. When the body burns excess amounts of fat to get energy your body is burning fat to get energy the moderate to excessive amounts of ketones in your urine are dangerous. They upset the chemical balance of the blood and the acidity of the body. That acid can also build up in your tissue and be secreted in your sweat. That's why people first starting out on these low/no carb diets often have an unusual smell to their breath and skin.
What ever happened to a properly balanced diet and exercise? Why is it that people have to go on these fad diets like low-carbing? Granted I feel that the average North American consumes way too many carbs. It does seem to me that the high-fat, low carb Atkins way of doing things is what probably lead to the man's heart attack. And having 60 percent fat in the diet isn't healthy either. In the long run that can have serious side effects on organs such as the heart and liver.
And before one embarks on a low-carb or no-carb diet they should have their blood glucose levels checked.... why? Because if they are an undiagnosed diabetic they could cause even greater harm to their body. The liver should also be monitored and one should speak with their doctor about a cut off point for the amount of ketones that are safe for that individual. Also if a low/no carb diet isn't done properly then there can be issues with muscle wasting.LaurieAnn, I too have read and understand that a high-fat diet/approach is simply unhealthy. Does it work? Maybe, albeit temporarily. The fact of the matter is long term it will not. It will also eventually make you sick and unhealthy. And anything that cannot be continued for ones lifetime, and that is unhealthy and will make one unhealthy in the long run is simply not a desireable/successful approach. This is what the American Heart Association thinks of the Atkins Diet/Approach:http://suewidemark.com/atkinsdiet_aha.htm
LaurieAnn, I too have read and understand that a high-fat diet/approach is simply unhealthy. Does it work? Maybe, albeit temporarily. The fact of the matter is long term it will not. It will also eventually make you sick and unhealthy. And anything that cannot be continued for ones lifetime, and that is unhealthy and will make one unhealthy in the long run is simply not a desireable/successful approach. This is what the American Heart Association thinks of the Atkins Diet/Approach:http://suewidemark.com/atkinsdiet_aha.htm
Where to start?
In terms of evolution our bodies would be programmed to run on energy-dense, readily available foods. Fat is the preferred source of this energy. Most of the nutritional information in the last 50 years is off-base, corrupted by moneyed concerns. The Keys study, reference above, put us on a path to obesity and disease. Humans are not designed to eat a diet that is predominately grain-based.
I've read some on nutrition recently and have gone from a vegetarian diet to eating 'heartheathywholegrains' to a predominately carnivorous diet. My blood work is vastly improved and I have never been in better health.
Some basic information:
http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22116724
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/cancer-shows-scant-regard-for-healthy-diet-20100406-rpen.html
The 'science' behind the FDA's food pyramid was never any sort of consensus. They enacted these recommendation with the caveat of, 'well, we have to do something' rather than make a complete investigation of this subject. We are also learning so much more about the components of our diet and the hormonal response to the food we eat. Omega oils were relatively unknown at that time, the make-up and role of cholesterol wasn't clear.
If you have an interest, I'd guess your pathway to learning about nutrition would go something like:
Why do we need all these diets?
What's wrong with our food that it makes us sick?
Who benefits from this misinformation?
What are we designed to eat naturally?
Who decided what is healthy and what is not?
Where does our food actually come from? (not pretty)
When were we at our best as a species?
Why do grains make us smaller, dumber and sicker?
How do we control our hormones for optimum health?
Finally, what's for dinner that actually matters?
As to the original point of the post topic--look into making pemmican. That would be the perfect low-carb food for a trip. Add in some fruit for a change of pace.
Danielsen
09-28-2010, 10:32
Sorry I stand corrected.
There is also evidence that such a diet can affect performance adversely because of the low muscle glycogen levels even over the long term. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Ketogenic diets are used for prevent seizures though because of the effect they have on the brain.
PS I hope you aren't offended by the debate and I must further apologize for not fact checking the heart business about Dr. Atkins. Perhaps we should take the debate off board so that we don't continue to hijack the thread? I'm quite interested in learning from this conversation.
Thanks for keeping an open mind, I'll send PM.
DapperD, your assertion "Does it work? Maybe, albeit temporarily. The fact of the matter is long term it will not. It will also eventually make you sick and unhealthy. And anything that cannot be continued for ones lifetime, and that is unhealthy and will make one unhealthy in the long run is simply not a desireable/successful approach" is quite simply not supported by either the hard science available or the historical record. Numerous societies in the course of human history lived very healthy lives on high-fat diets and did not know the physical ills of modern society until their diets were "modernized" as well. More importantly, many modern humans have switched to high-fat diets based on the same principles as I have and many have been living on them for decades and continue to be in excellent health. Dr Atkins himself, as noted, was described as being in excellent health at the time of his death by a board member of the same American Heart Association that you reference, after decades of eating a high-fat diet.
Speaking of the AHA, they are among the many organizations who base their policies on the same outdated science that I reference above, and which T-dubs has pointed out. Please, do your own research rather than simply appealing to the authority of others (like the AHA). The biochemistry isn't that hard to understand, and the historical information is readily available.
Where to start?
In terms of evolution our bodies would be programmed to run on energy-dense, readily available foods. Fat is the preferred source of this energy. Most of the nutritional information in the last 50 years is off-base, corrupted by moneyed concerns. The Keys study, reference above, put us on a path to obesity and disease. Humans are not designed to eat a diet that is predominately grain-based.
I've read some on nutrition recently and have gone from a vegetarian diet to eating 'heartheathywholegrains' to a predominately carnivorous diet. My blood work is vastly improved and I have never been in better health.
Some basic information:
http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22116724
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/cancer-shows-scant-regard-for-healthy-diet-20100406-rpen.html
The 'science' behind the FDA's food pyramid was never any sort of consensus. They enacted these recommendation with the caveat of, 'well, we have to do something' rather than make a complete investigation of this subject. We are also learning so much more about the components of our diet and the hormonal response to the food we eat. Omega oils were relatively unknown at that time, the make-up and role of cholesterol wasn't clear.
If you have an interest, I'd guess your pathway to learning about nutrition would go something like:
Why do we need all these diets?
What's wrong with our food that it makes us sick?
Who benefits from this misinformation?
What are we designed to eat naturally?
Who decided what is healthy and what is not?
Where does our food actually come from? (not pretty)
When were we at our best as a species?
Why do grains make us smaller, dumber and sicker?
How do we control our hormones for optimum health?
Finally, what's for dinner that actually matters?
As to the original point of the post topic--look into making pemmican. That would be the perfect low-carb food for a trip. Add in some fruit for a change of pace.No one is saying to eat a grain based diet.
The biochemistry isn't that hard to understand, and the historical information is readily available.I agree 100%:D
Danielsen
09-28-2010, 11:42
I agree 100%:D
In that case, I'm rather surprised at your quoting of the AHA, whose own history doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in their authority.
You're against both high-fat diets and express no love of grain-based diets, so where does that put you? Starchophile? Low-fat paleo? Vegan? Lacto-ovo veg?
LaurieAnn
09-28-2010, 13:35
Where to start?
In terms of evolution our bodies would be programmed to run on energy-dense, readily available foods. Fat is the preferred source of this energy. Most of the nutritional information in the last 50 years is off-base, corrupted by moneyed concerns. The Keys study, reference above, put us on a path to obesity and disease. Humans are not designed to eat a diet that is predominately grain-based.
Actually wouldn't that depend on regional availability? To my knowledge many cultures were hunter gatherers and they ate grains, berries, plants and such when meats were not available. Also look at the historical significance of sugar and the consumption of sugars even in the past century. It went from the very occasional luxury to part of our every day lives.
I figured I should mention my carb intake, which at home is between 200 and 225 grams a day. On the trail add an extra 25 to 50 grams to that number. But I am diabetic and have to really be aware of my carb intake or I end up with serious issues. Nothing worse than a diabetic low on the trail - it can be pretty scary.
LaurieAnn
09-28-2010, 13:38
I also wanted to mention that both the Canada's Food Guide and the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans state that a person should consume 250 grams of carb based on a 2000 calorie diet each day.
LD Hiker meals:
50% Carbs
30% Fat
20% Protein
Any "safe" diet will approach the following and this is not too hard to verify by googling reputable sites:
55-60% Carbs
20-25% Fat
20% Protein
Don't worry about losing weight on the trail. Especially if you're hiking with other people. You're going to run out of energy and they're going to want to keep going. Trail walking is more or less the ideal conditions for weight loss and more or less the best recreation of man in his natural environment. You eat a small meal and then you work for two to three hours for another small meal. The reason we love stuff like Snickers is because it's the perfect food for such a lifestyle. To a person sitting behind a computer all day it's unhealthy but for someone walking 15-20 miles a day it's perfect.
In that case, I'm rather surprised at your quoting of the AHA, whose own history doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in their authority.
You're against both high-fat diets and express no love of grain-based diets, so where does that put you? Starchophile? Low-fat paleo? Vegan? Lacto-ovo veg?What I am trying to say is for the everyday person who is not involved in a grueling type of activity (such as long distance hiking day after day, or hard physical type labor, etc...) I do not feel, in my opinion, that a high fat diet is a healthy choice to make. If I am going to be pushing myself day after day physically, then I would consume not just more fats, but more of all the food groups. And simple and complex carbohydrates would definately be included amongst them. Without plenty of carbs, I would most likely burn out physically and prematurely. As far as the diet I follow in my everyday life, I believe, like other's, that a variety of foods is the way to go. I try not to eat too much over the entire course of the day, but I eat well.
Don't worry about losing weight on the trail. Especially if you're hiking with other people. You're going to run out of energy and they're going to want to keep going. Trail walking is more or less the ideal conditions for weight loss and more or less the best recreation of man in his natural environment. You eat a small meal and then you work for two to three hours for another small meal. The reason we love stuff like Snickers is because it's the perfect food for such a lifestyle. To a person sitting behind a computer all day it's unhealthy but for someone walking 15-20 miles a day it's perfect.I would agree with this. When you are pushing yourself physically day after day, you can get away with consuming extra food much easier than leading a sedentary life.
Actually wouldn't that depend on regional availability? To my knowledge many cultures were hunter gatherers and they ate grains, berries, plants and such when meats were not available.
http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2009/07/top-ten-problems-with-applying.html
.....what little direct evidence we have of Paleolithic diets does not support an omnivorous diet as a matter of course.
Humans do not have any significant ability to digest and extract energy from fiber..... This clearly indicates that the human gut evolved to handle unrefined foods containing little or no fiber, i.e. animal foods. In other words, humans evolved on and are specifically adapted to a carnivorous diet.No doubt that easily digested, highly refined carbohydrates are the root cause of so much ill-health. Which gets back to my post of, 'why is our food so bad for us' and 'what is the best thing for humans to eat'
I try to keep my carb intake below 20 gr. daily. Sometimes it gets up higher but seldom, if ever, close to that 100 mark.
Danielsen
09-28-2010, 21:53
What I am trying to say is for the everyday person who is not involved in a grueling type of activity (such as long distance hiking day after day, or hard physical type labor, etc...) I do not feel, in my opinion, that a high fat diet is a healthy choice to make... Without plenty of carbs, I would most likely burn out physically and prematurely.
Well, I'm saying that there is no foundation for such an assertion. Ignoring the lipid hypothesis, which is what policies of groups like the AHA and our own food pyramid are based on and which is a joke from any scientific standpoint, the biochemistry shows that fat is a perfectly healthy fuel for human metabolism. And again, history backs it up. Numerous pre-agricultural (and some post-agricultural) societies consumed high-fat diets and thrived on them, with those members who lived to old age (life expectancy was, naturally, shortened by the greater dangers of life in those periods) arriving there in robust health despite the diet you fear to be unhealthy.
Well, I'm saying that there is no foundation for such an assertion. Ignoring the lipid hypothesis, which is what policies of groups like the AHA and our own food pyramid are based on and which is a joke from any scientific standpoint, the biochemistry shows that fat is a perfectly healthy fuel for human metabolism. And again, history backs it up. Numerous pre-agricultural (and some post-agricultural) societies consumed high-fat diets and thrived on them, with those members who lived to old age (life expectancy was, naturally, shortened by the greater dangers of life in those periods) arriving there in robust health despite the diet you fear to be unhealthy.I don't fear anything. I have enough common sense to realize that if I eat a diet of nothing but deep fried (fill in the blank), candy bars, cheese, bacon and eggs, spam, nuts, salami, sausage, pizza and whatever else it most likely won't take a rocket scientist to realize it won't be long before the big one hits:D. I am not an Eskimo living outside in Nome, Alaska:sunAnd when Atkins died, he was a bloated mess with clogged arteries. And it was from his diet, not from an illness that caused water retention like his cohorts wanted everyone else to believe.:welcome
Danielsen
09-28-2010, 22:53
If it's deep-fried in industrial vegetable oils, absolutely. If it's lard, you don't have to be an eskimo to do alright.
You seem to have missed the "head injury" bit re: Dr. Atkins. The "cohorts" you mention include one of the influential fellows in the organization you quoted in your first post, the AHA, who all seem pretty rabidly opposed to high-fat diets.
Anyways, this train of thought is now apparently leaving the station of reason and logic. To the OP: go for it. I already gave my advice. If LC has been working for you so far, don't let the uninformed scare you off. With that I bid this thread adieu.
Here is a really cool paper on combining a ketogenic diet with endurance training.
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just posting it.
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2
Abstract
Impaired physical performance is a common but not obligate result of a low carbohydrate diet. Lessons from traditional Inuit culture indicate that time for adaptation, optimized sodium and potassium nutriture, and constraint of protein to 15–25 % of daily energy expenditure allow unimpaired endurance performance despite nutritional ketosis.
...
Conclusions
Both observational and prospectively designed studies support the conclusion that submaximal endurance performance can be sustained despite the virtual exclusion of carbohydrate from the human diet. Clearly this result does not automatically follow the casual implementation of dietary carbohydrate restriction, however, as careful attention to time for keto-adaptation, mineral nutriture, and constraint of the daily protein dose is required. Contradictory results in the scientific literature can be explained by the lack of attention to these lessons learned (and for the most part now forgotten) by the cultures that traditionally lived by hunting. Therapeutic use of ketogenic diets should not require constraint of most forms of physical labor or recreational activity, with the one caveat that anaerobic (ie, weight lifting or sprint) performance is limited by the low muscle glycogen levels induced by a ketogenic diet, and this would strongly discourage its use under most conditions of competitive athletics.
If it's deep-fried in industrial vegetable oils, absolutely. If it's lard, you don't have to be an eskimo to do alright.
You seem to have missed the "head injury" bit re: Dr. Atkins. The "cohorts" you mention include one of the influential fellows in the organization you quoted in your first post, the AHA, who all seem pretty rabidly opposed to high-fat diets.
Anyways, this train of thought is now apparently leaving the station of reason and logic. To the OP: go for it. I already gave my advice. If LC has been working for you so far, don't let the uninformed scare you off. With that I bid this thread adieu.http://www.bongonews.com/layout1.php?event=463
I would have to argue that the traditional inuit diet will work for anyone, not just Inuit, as long as they are active. Not saying it is the best diet. Just saying it is better than the average North American diet, which is generally to high in just about everything, fats, carbs, and protien, and too low in physical activity and REAL FOOD.
If you are adapted to a ketogeic diet, 15-25% calories from protien, most from fats, and little from carbs, you should certainly be able to hike on it. Hiking is done mostly well below the anaerobic threshold, so glycogen levels should not likely get depleted faster than they are restored. If the diet is done properly, lean body mass should not become depleted, and should be maintained or even enhanced, if that is how the body needs to adapt to the hiking. You need to take some precautions with respect to sodium and potassium. See the paper above.
Protien needs to be 15-25% on such a diet. Not lower or higher.
Fats make up must of the calories, 73% to 83%.
Carbs can be as low as 7%, based on the paper above, and tradtional Inuit diets.
My key points:
1. I see no reason however, why the carbs could not be increased somewhat above 7%.
2. It is also not clear if 15-25% protien consumption is still advisable if the daily energy burn is increased to higher levels, like 5000 kcal/day, or higher.
3. It is not clear what happens if this sort of diet is combined with weight loss during a long distance hike. I would guess that energy from the body fat loss replaces energy from dietary fat, but not from protien or carbs. However, if the daily energy burn is very high, perhaps the protien intake, as a percentage, needs to be reduced somewhat to the lower end of the 15-25% range, perhaps even lower as a percentage of total energy burned, as long as it is still at least 15% of total energy consumed. Not clear.
I have read studies that body fat loss can be about 1% of total body fat per day. So the more fat you have, the more you can safely and easily burn.
Example:
Say a person weighs 200 pounds, of which 50 pounds is body fat.
Say this person is burning a total of 5000 kcal/day while hiking.
So what would be a reasonable ketogenic diet for this person?
Assuming they are adapted to a ketogenic diet, which takes 3-4 weeks at least.
Protien:
15-25% protien. 16% = 200g. 20% = 250g. 24% = 300g.
Let's go with 16% = 200g, as the higher values could be tough on kidneys.
Carbs:
Rather than the 7%, lets go to 10% = 125g.
The Inuit had limited sources of carbs,
but most traditional hunter-gathers had carb sources, so we'll add some moderation.
Fats:
That leaves 74% for Fats = 3700kcal = 411g.
With 50 pounds of body fat, up to 0.5 pounds can come from the body.
0.5 pounds x 454g x 90% fat (10% water) ~ 200g fat from body = 1800kcal
That leaves 211g fat to come from the diet = 1900 kcal
Thus the diet would look like this:
Total Food Intake = 3200kcal of 5000kcal burned, for up to 0.5 pound fat loss per day.
Protien = 200g = 800kcal/3200 = 25% of diet, 16% of energy burned
Carbs= 125g = 500kcal/3200 = 15.6% of diet, 10% of energy burned
Dietary Fat = 211g = 1900kcal/3200 = 59.4% of diet, 38% of energy burned
Body Fat = 200g = 0/3200, 1800/5000 = 0% of diet, 36% of energy burned
I could see this working in a person that has adapted to a ketogenic diet. However, they might need additional time to adapt to a ketogenic diet at higher daily energy consumption, and higher protien intake, and higher rates of body fat loss. This could take a few weeks.
So how do they adapt their current diet to hiking at 5000kcal/day or higher?
I would suggest a diet roughly as follows:
Maintain constant ratios around 15% carbs, 25% protien, 60% fats.
Initially limit activity to 4000 kcal/day, and gradually increase to 5000kcal or higher.
Initially limit caloric deficit to 1000 kcal/day, gradually increase to 1800 kcal/day.
As you lose weight, you need to reduce your caloric deficit, burn less body fat.
This can be done by adding more dietary fat. But at any time, carbs can be increased gradually from 10-15% towards more even parity with dietary fats, while dietary fats can be reduced gradually to more even parity with carbohydrates. Carbs can be a mix of simple sugars and complex carbs, as long as the food is real food, and reasonably balanced. Protiens should probably be maintained at around 15% of total energy burned, and up to 25% of food consumed while there is a caloric deficit.
Ok. Now you can shoot me.
Personally, I think 25% Protien, 25-50% Carbs, 25-50% Fats, as percentages of food energy consumed, is a good general purpose diet for hiking and everyday living, whether you are losing weight or maintaining your weight. Whether you go 1:2 carb:fat or 2:1 fat:carb or something in between either is very natural and flexible in terms of a wide variety of natural foods and food groups you can choose from. You should choose a natural balanced diet from most food groups, and you should really limit you food choices to real food.
If you follow this simple rule, you can't go wrong really...
1. EAT REAL FOOD.
2. ACCEPT NO FOOD-LIKE SUBSTITUTES.
3. Try to maintain 10-15% body fat during most of the year.
4. Gradually burn off excess body fat through higher levels of activity.
5. Only go < 10-15% body fat for brief periods, then return to safer levels.
6. Enjoy traditional seasonal feasts, by being lean and active going into them.
IronGutsTommy
09-29-2010, 02:27
keep in mind atkins is dead, so his diet did not do him much good. there are good carbs and bad carbs. some complex carbs like those found in wheat flour can be quite beneficial to the body. as a diabetic since 1994 ive learned a bit about the benefits carbs have in fueling the body, especially for arduous tasks like sports, or, say... hiking for long periods of time.
to each their own, but wed probably all live longer if we just cut mostly everything from our diets, but what kind of life is that? a few more years in our 90s eating oatbran? if they invented a pill to take that would give the body the benefits of 8 hours sleep and a full meal, i wouldnt take it. sleep and eating a variety of healthy delicious foods are some of the simpler joys in life. bottom line is if you exercise, you can get away with a more liberal diet. sad that the american culture has people choosing instead to sit on the couch eating cabbage soup 3 times a day and taking dexatrim and wondering why theyre still fat....
I think the Adkins and Zone Diets are too high in protien, not too low in carbs. I think 25% is a good upper limit for protien. 15% of energy burned as a lower limit. I think the other 75-85% can come from a wide range of carb:fat ratios. But I don't think either should be below 15%, or over 65%. I like 25% for Protien, 25-50% for Carbs, 25-50% for Fats. There are alot of traditional diets that fit into those sort of ranges. So you can focus on eating real food, and some form of natural and traditional balanced diet that suits your particular needs and temperament.
You are right though, must diets simply don't emphasis enough activity. They are afraid to, because most people are not fit enough to do very much running or weight lifting, at least at first, and most dieticians and trainers can't conceive of telling people to simple go out for long walks, like 3-6 hours or more in a single day, 10-20 hours a week, or more. Sure, lift what weights you can, and run or bike or some other higher intensity sport, whatever you can do and want to do. So that's maybe 4-6 hours a week at best for most people. So fill in the other 5-15 hours a week walking in the park. That's like maybe 30-60min a weekday, and the rest on a weekend day hike.
LaurieAnn
09-29-2010, 14:38
You are right though, must diets simply don't emphasis enough activity. They are afraid to, because most people are not fit enough to do very much running or weight lifting, at least at first, and most dieticians and trainers can't conceive of telling people to simple go out for long walks, like 3-6 hours or more in a single day, 10-20 hours a week, or more. Sure, lift what weights you can, and run or bike or some other higher intensity sport, whatever you can do and want to do. So that's maybe 4-6 hours a week at best for most people. So fill in the other 5-15 hours a week walking in the park. That's like maybe 30-60min a weekday, and the rest on a weekend day hike.
That's it in a nutshell. If only doctors could prescribe this kind of activity as they would a prescription for Xenical or some other weight loss remedy. People want a quick fix and aren't often willing to put in what it takes to get healthy. I lost all of my weight (more than many of you probably weigh) by getting off my butt and working out. I coupled that with healthy eating... balanced diet and balanced lifestyle. That's the key.
That's it in a nutshell. If only doctors could prescribe this kind of activity as they would a prescription for Xenical or some other weight loss remedy. People want a quick fix and aren't often willing to put in what it takes to get healthy. I lost all of my weight (more than many of you probably weigh) by getting off my butt and working out. I coupled that with healthy eating... balanced diet and balanced lifestyle. That's the key.Well done LaurieAnn. Nice photos by the way. I get the impression you are really enjoying your new lifestyle and that's what really counts. The new look is just icing on the cake. I like to call myself an outsider now, because I spend more time outside than most people. It's become a rather exclusive club. :)
You are right though, must diets simply don't emphasis enough activity. They are afraid to, because most people are not fit enough to do very much running or weight lifting, at least at first, and most dieticians and trainers can't conceive of telling people to simple go out for long walks, like 3-6 hours or more in a single day, 10-20 hours a week, or more. Sure, lift what weights you can, and run or bike or some other higher intensity sport, whatever you can do and want to do. So that's maybe 4-6 hours a week at best for most people. So fill in the other 5-15 hours a week walking in the park. That's like maybe 30-60min a weekday, and the rest on a weekend day hike.
The thing about exercise is that the body is an incredibly efficient machine. For the past few years I've averaged at least 70 miles running/walking/hiking per week and I'll gain weight if I eat over 3000 or so calories a day. This summer I hiked an 800 mile section hike, averaging 20 miles a day over 40 days and gained 7 lbs.
Someone not conditioned to as much physical activity as I do would burn a lot more calories - at first.
Of course my age has something to do with it too... When I was in my 20's I could eat a lot more than I can now and not gain weight.
LaurieAnn
09-29-2010, 17:54
Of course my age has something to do with it too... When I was in my 20's I could eat a lot more than I can now and not gain weight.[/QUOTE]
Age does make it a little more difficult because the metabolic rate changes as we get older. I'm almost 42 so I can relate.
keep in mind atkins is dead, so his diet did not do him much good. there are good carbs and bad carbs. some complex carbs like those found in wheat flour can be quite beneficial to the body. as a diabetic since 1994 ive learned a bit about the benefits carbs have in fueling the body, especially for arduous tasks like sports, or, say... hiking for long periods of time.
to each their own, but wed probably all live longer if we just cut mostly everything from our diets, but what kind of life is that? a few more years in our 90s eating oatbran? if they invented a pill to take that would give the body the benefits of 8 hours sleep and a full meal, i wouldnt take it. sleep and eating a variety of healthy delicious foods are some of the simpler joys in life. bottom line is if you exercise, you can get away with a more liberal diet. sad that the american culture has people choosing instead to sit on the couch eating cabbage soup 3 times a day and taking dexatrim and wondering why theyre still fat....You are right when you speak of the benefits of good carbohydrates. According to this article, a low carbohydrate or no-carbohydrate diet is not good for people who are diabetic:http://www.livestrong.com/article/246175-negative-effects-of-a-no-carb-diet/
Speaking of the AHA, they are among the many organizations who base their policies on the same outdated science that I reference above, and which T-dubs has pointed out. Please, do your own research rather than simply appealing to the authority of others (like the AHA). The biochemistry isn't that hard to understand, and the historical information is readily available.The American Heart Association is not the only one's opposed to high fat diets, especially The Atkins Diet:http://www.atkinsexposed.org/
LaurieAnn
09-29-2010, 22:11
You are right when you speak of the benefits of good carbohydrates. According to this article, a low carbohydrate or no-carbohydrate diet is not good for people who are diabetic:http://www.livestrong.com/article/246175-negative-effects-of-a-no-carb-diet/
Part of that is due to the fact that high fibre found in carbohydrates such as whole grains and legumes can help slow and steady the rise of blood glucose. Instead of a severe spike in the blood sugar there is a more gentle rise. This can help avoid both hyper- and hypo-glycemia. The production of ketones can be life-threatening for a diabetic as well as can too much fat in the diet. I may not have been diabetic for long, but one thing I know is how my system works. After some issues with nursing/nutritional staff that should frankly be fired from our local diabetes education centre, I took it upon myself to become well versed. My endocrinologist is simply amazed and I intend to keep it that way. There is a great book that explains a lot of this... it's titled Think Like a Pancreas.
Eggs are often problematic because they mess with the rise because of their high fat content and one can have a peak much later than anticipated. For those that are not on a pump or basal insulin this can be a pain in the butt. Not to mention diabetics are at 6 times greater risk for heart disease, heart attack and stroke. It's a nasty disease.
The American Heart Association is not the only one's opposed to high fat diets, especially The Atkins Diet
http://www.menshealth.com/men/health/heart-disease/saturated-fat/article/a03ddd2eaab85110VgnVCM10000013281eac
You trust the AHA, et.al because, as you look around, we're so much healthier having spent the last 5 decades following the dietary recommendations of these Gov/Corporate sponsored groups? I know I'm encouraged.
Instead of a severe spike in the blood sugar there is a more gentle rise.
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2009/01/13/6044/extremely-low-carb-ketogenic-diet-leads-to-dramatic-reductions-in-type-2-bg-levels-medications/
...reduce or even eliminate their diabetes (http://www.diabeteshealth.com/) medications (95.2 percent of the patients on the extreme low-carb diet) I don't know enough about diabetic medications to even offer an opinion. I do know of testimonials that tell of ketogenic diets improving the conditions of T-2 DM
LaurieAnn
09-30-2010, 09:15
http://www.menshealth.com/men/health/heart-disease/saturated-fat/article/a03ddd2eaab85110VgnVCM10000013281eac
You trust the AHA, et.al because, as you look around, we're so much healthier having spent the last 5 decades following the dietary recommendations of these Gov/Corporate sponsored groups? I know I'm encouraged.
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2009/01/13/6044/extremely-low-carb-ketogenic-diet-leads-to-dramatic-reductions-in-type-2-bg-levels-medications/
I don't know enough about diabetic medications to even offer an opinion. I do know of testimonials that tell of ketogenic diets improving the conditions of T-2 DM
It may reduce the need for medications however with medications like glucophage already having a side effect which can cause liver problems I don't trust it.
Just a note for those who are playing around with ketones. If you are dehydrated at all you'll find that you get a false-positive reading for ketones.
I'm not low carbing it... my intake is about 200 to 225 grams every 24 hours... more on hiking days. Keep in mind that includes my fruits and starches. I'm in a position at the moment where I am going to be probably taken off all medications because of severe hypoglycemic episodes. My body is not spilling ketones and I check for that daily. When they appear it's a big problem for me and the last time I ended up unconscious and in the emergency ward going into what is called DKA (total different beast and life threatening).
I had transformed my body chemistry to the point that I was completely without medication but the hormones of pregnancy meant a small dose of insulin was needed at meals. The key to my control and ability to go med free (which I do several days a week at the moment) has been watching carbs and the type of carbs and not going low carb. The only time I take insulin now is on days where I am not active. I see the endocrinologist on November 1st - I suspect at that appointment he will give me the official go-ahead to be med free. Weight loss is an important part of that equation as well.
I like carbs... this morning I enjoyed a piece of ancient grain toast (whole grain with quinoa and amaranth seeds in it), some cheese and an apple for breakfast. For a mid-day snack I like to have a few crackers (usually 4 or 5 depending on the brand) with a little roasted red pepper/chickpea hummus. I did a 5 mile exercise DVD while the baby was napping so I won't need any meds this morning.
My fear with the uber-low-carb diets is their effect on my system - I'll admit that I am very afraid of the whole ketone thing and the effects where heart disease is concerned. Not only am I a high risk of heart disease because of the diabetes but also because of heredity. Health Canada doesn't speak to highly of the ketogenic diets nor does my nutritionist and endocrinologist. I really trust my team. My current A1C (for those who understand that sort of thing) is 4.6. One before that was 5.0. In fact I haven't had an A1C above 5.6 since diagnosis when it was 16.8. Even during pregnancy my insulin needs were ridiculously low compared to my diabetic peers at the specialist. Then again, I'm stubborn and treat exercise as a prescription. I don't understand T2 diabetics who don't realize how seriously helpful exercise is. T1 is a whole different ball game.
Hypoglycemic episodes scare me as well. I had one in late August when we were camping with the baby. I don't remember most of it but my last conscious memory was testing my blood sugar and it being 2.2 mmol (I think that's about 39 using the US system). It was because of not having enough carbs to match what my body was doing. Even though I hadn't taken any insulin that day... I suffer from another non-diabetic condition called reactive or postprandial hypoglycemia caused from the gap between meals. It's caused by the gap between meals and using a slow releasing, high fibre carb choice at mealtime can help prevent that.
Glycemic index is great to know about for the trail too. If you look at something as simple as rice and compare the GI of white rice with basmati and then with brown rice you can see the difference. The white causes a much quicker energy release (glucose) than the basmati. Then the brown rice has a much lower GI so it releases much slower. As a hiker going on longer trips, combining slow and fast releasing carbs and proteins can be beneficial as you can take advantage of the GI to optimize the energy levels.
I'll admit that I am very afraid of the whole ketone thing and the effects where heart disease is concerned.
I am not diabetic and have no experience with the associated problems. For most of us....
*Eades*.....ketones are THE preferred fuel for the heart, making that organ operate at about 28 percent greater efficiency.
Fat is the perfect fuel.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/metabolism-and-ketosis/ <--linked again...
LaurieAnn
09-30-2010, 09:37
I am not diabetic and have no experience with the associated problems. For most of us....
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/metabolism-and-ketosis/ <--linked again...
That may be true but there are other concerns... like the fact that grains help reduce cholesterol levels and that fibre. There is more to heart disease than just the heart... veins, arteries, liver production and so on. And if it so good for the heart then why aren't the Heart and Stroke Foundation, Health Canada and the AHA pushing for it more? Especially here in Canada where we have universal health care.
Couple of things about ketones.
1. Low carbs doesn't automatically result in ketosis.
2. Ketosis isn't always a bad thing.
You can reduce glycogen depletion by burning more fat. You can also replenish glycogen from fat or protien, which can be surplus fats or protiens. Ketones which may or may not be created as a biproduct of such conversion of fats and protiens to glucose and glycogen can be utilitized as fuel by the brain to conserve more glycogen. Ketosis doesn't neccessarily indicate you are losing vital muscle or organ tissue. That brings up a third thing.
3. The loss of protien from muscle or organ tissue is not always a bad thing.
When muscle and other organs get used, they need to be maintained, and so alot of the protiens that make up these muscle fibres and organ tissues get sort of marked for repair, and these protiens get recycled. They can be recycled as fuel, or as building blocks to repair these muscles or other organs. These muscles and organs do not neccessarily need to be repaired right away. Often it is better if the breaking down part of the remodelling takes place first. Then the rebuilding which takes place later that day, or the next day or two, can be done more extensively and more completely. Also, some muscles and organ tissue might happen to be bigger than they really need to be. In some cases, maybe they were bigger than they needed to be because the muscles or organs lacked the neccessary support in oxygen through blood vessels and your cardiovascular system. Maybe you have lost some weight and some of your muscles can be smaller now, but still be as strong and fit but to do different work. Maybe some of you digestive organs can be a bit smaller because you are eating less now, or maybe alot of the muscle and organ tissue was created simply because there was a surplus of protien from your over-eating. It wasn't really useful, or strong, or fit, muscle or organ tissue. Maybe it needs to get smaller for awhile, and perhaps rebuilt later to be fitter tissue. I think losing a little lean mass now and then is not neccessarily a bad thing. Especially if it is junk lean mass. Let it go for awhile sometimes. Then rebuild it better. Alot of people are afraid to lose any muscle, because they won't get it back. Not only is this not neccessarily true, but they hold onto alot of junk muscle and organ tissue in the process.
What matters most is that you stay active, and eat real food. Let your body weight fluctuate some, including the lean mass, and your body will likely better adapt in the long run through this periodization. Especially as you age, less is often more. Muscle is only as good as the infrastructure that supports it. If you are active and eating well and lose a little muscle while losing alot of unnecessary fat and bulk, you will adapt, and hold onto the best stuff even if you do lose some good stuff as well. You will gain even better stuff back as you get even fitter, and better adapted, with better infrastructure to support it. If you love it, let it go... ;)
There is a primitive man or woman in every one of use, wild and lean and strong and waiting to be set free.
That may be true but there are other concerns... like the fact that grains help reduce cholesterol levels and that fibre. There is more to heart disease than just the heart... veins, arteries, liver production and so on. And if it so good for the heart then why aren't the Heart and Stroke Foundation, Health Canada and the AHA pushing for it more? Especially here in Canada where we have universal health care.
On a list of things we should not eat, grains are in the top 3 along with sugar(s) and industrial oils.
(Grains reduce overall cholesterol with the decrease in HDL--the good one. There is little correlation between total cholesterol and heart disease...almost none.)
(Fiber is not necessary in the human diet, so those recommendations to eat 25-30 gr/day? Totally off-base)
Our institutes of health have been wrong for so long they could never ask for a 'do over'.
"Hey, you know that food pyramid thing we've been touting for 50 years. Funny thing. We got it upside-down. Make those changes, will you?"
Can you imagine the litigation that would result from the admission they've been wrong all this time?
I think it's pretty interesting that we can take something as simple as eating and complicate the he$$ out of it....
Eat when you're hungry, don't eat too much, eat a variety of foods and stay physically active.
While not right for everyone, the above prescription would work for the vast majority of people.
"Eat when you're hungry, don't eat too much, eat a variety of foods and stay physically active."
Very well said. I would only change or add one thing, at the risk of overcomplicating things. The variety of foods should be REAL FOOD, not some over processed food like substances. I think that is actually a simplification. Thus...
"Eat when you're hungry, don't eat too much, eat a variety of simple natural foods and stay physically active."
LaurieAnn
09-30-2010, 11:11
I think it's pretty interesting that we can take something as simple as eating and complicate the he$$ out of it....
Eat when you're hungry, don't eat too much, eat a variety of foods and stay physically active.
While not right for everyone, the above prescription would work for the vast majority of people.
That's pretty much what I've been doing. Works great.
"Eat when you're hungry, don't eat too much, eat a variety of foods and stay physically active."
Very well said. I would only change or add one thing, at the risk of overcomplicating things. The variety of foods should be REAL FOOD, not some over processed food like substances. I think that is actually a simplification. Thus...
"Eat when you're hungry, don't eat too much, eat a variety of simple natural foods and stay physically active."Easy enough in theory, except for the fact that more people than we can imagine when they become hungry turn to a jar, box, package, or can:D. And in these troubled times, the hot dogs are selling like hotcakes. And as for exercise, well, you get the picture:rolleyes:
Despite the few flareups of ignorance, this has been a fascinating discussion -- especially the first page. I learned a lot about nutrition and the scientific basis for some of what I've tended to dismiss as fad diets.
I was diagnosed as a type 2 diabetic 15 years or so, probably undiagnosed for twice that long. I've lost feeling in both feet, that the docs attribute to the diabetes. But after being disgnosed my blood sugar was brought under control within a year or so. In recent months I've been shedding medicines in response to low sugar episodes.
I've also been shedding pounds with no special effort on my part, around 30 pounds over around a year. I never was especially fat, but I've dropped from 190+ on my bath room scales to around 160. My doctor shrugs when I mention this and asks if I wanted to. "Initially," I reply. "Now I'm just surprised."
I've shifted from white flour to whole grains, but my diet hasn't seriously changed otherwise. We eat lots of vegetables during the months the garden is producing. Each year something grows especially well -- squash, corn, beans ... This year it's mostly tomatoes. I've boiled down and frozen tomato puree from at least two bushels of ripe tomatoes, and eaten another bushel of fresh. BLT sandwiches on high fiber toast is a favorite lunch these days.
Otherwise its cereal, meat and potatoes, or pasta. My wife and I split a bottle of wine most evenings, often before having a dish of ice cream.
I mention these things to suggest that rigid diet rules aren't required for even reasonably active old people.
Weary
LaurieAnn
09-30-2010, 11:19
Easy enough in theory, except for the fact that more people than we can imagine when they become hungry turn to a jar, box, package, or can:D. And in these troubled times, the hot dogs are selling like hotcakes. And as for exercise, well, you get the picture:rolleyes:
and... that's why T2 Diabetes and Heart Disease are pretty much epidemic in our countries.
Real food is really not that hard to find, or to identify. It is ok if it comes in a jar or a box or a package or a can. It doesn't have to be more expensive either.
Real food is not theory, or practice. Real food is just food.
If you can't afford real meat, you but real oats and real peas.
There is alot of real food than is cheap, cheaper than fast food.
I've heard the argument that people on welfare buy and eat pop and chips and feed it to their kids because they can't afford good food. I don't buy it. People on welfare buy and eat pop and chips and feed it to their kids for the same reason I do. It is addictive. You just have to get past that. Many of them do, and so can I, and so can all of you.
I've heard the argument that people on welfare buy and eat pop and chips and feed it to their kids because they can't afford good food. I don't buy it. People on welfare buy and eat pop and chips and feed it to their kids for the same reason I do. It is addictive. You just have to get past that. Many of them do, and so can I, and so can all of you.
You have to be careful when you start talking about "people on welfare" and "poor" people because of the stereotyping involved.
I would agree that people who often don't have ready access to transportation (as in, "Let's drive to the grocery store and buy groceries.") often buy food from convenience stores which is always garbage food because it is .. well... more convenient than taking the bus to the grocery store across town and bring back several bags of groceries on the same bus.
Way, way off topic now...
I've heard the argument that people on welfare buy and eat pop and chips and feed it to their kids because they can't afford good food. I don't buy it. People on welfare buy and eat pop and chips and feed it to their kids for the same reason I do. It is addictive. You just have to get past that. Many of them do, and so can I, and so can all of you.
This is way off topic but I live near the shadier side of town and Piggly Wiggly is the closest grocery store. It is clearly the lower income grocery store. You just can't get anything fresh there. The produce is horrible. The end of aisle displays are only junk food. I don't think more than 10% of their food doesn't contain HFCS. The difference between that store and the Kroger that is in a nicer section of town is night and day as far as health concerns.
So cost wise yes someone in a low income bracket could go to the farmer's market every Saturday and get cheaper high quality food or take the bus across town or drive across town but the kind of people on assistance like this normally are very limited budget wise in time and in gas. The barrier is not simply cost but transportation, time and education.
You just can't get anything fresh there. The produce is horrible. The end of aisle displays are only junk food.
Food Deserts.
My son had a fellowship in DC that dealt with the problem of providing healthy food for inner city residents.
JAK Real food is really not that hard to find, or to identify. It is ok if it comes in a jar or a box or a package or a can. It doesn't have to be more expensive either.
Pollan's advise, below, seems to be spot-on for many. Although he thinks anything with a bar code may not be real enough.
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." http://michaelpollan.com/books/in-defense-of-food/
Good book. Pollan is where I got the “edible foodlike substances” from.
As in... Eat real food. Avoid foodlike substances. It was a ripoff from Pollan.
I'm not proud.
My wife and I hiked VA to MA in spring 2017 with our baby and there were several sections in PA and NY where we couldn't find any fresh produce. I was glad we packed and shipped all our food in advance. I maintained a strict ketogenic diet of 80-90% fat (<30g carbs/day <90g protein). I had great energy levels without carbs but the rocks of PA still beat up my feet. I wrote up my story as well as the recipes I used in a book called Ketogenic Backpacking that I published on amazon kindle.
Planning on doing MA to ME this spring and testing out some new recipes.