PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 7 Sep 1998 10:29:45 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (49 lines)
Gregg Carter wrote:
>   Anyway, the ASNS has no position on the food pyramid.
Not really:
> "Carbohydrates are the principal dietary source of energy...
A low carber would say that fat is the principal source of energy

> Mary Locniskar's essay on carbs is typical of the ASNS's nutritional
> statements-- I find it well-grounded, informative, and very apolitical.
Not exactly apolitical as the references for the Daily Value are included
as the only recomendation. They are simply stating the FDA recomendations
without endorsing them. This has the effect of reinforcing this info
in peoples minds without being on record as supporting it.
Also, continues to give credence to the idea of eating complex carbs for
type II diabetics:
> Recent research: Interest continues in the effect of consumption of
> complex carbohydrates on maintaining normal glycemic index in patients
> with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus and normal lipid levels in
> patients at risk of cardiovascular disease.
Then makes a statement (that most of the parents would argue about)
defending carbs:
> Recently, it has been shown that hyperactivity in children is
> not associated with sugar intake.
Finishing up with:
> Toxicity: Toxicity does not occur from excessive ingestion of
> carbohydrates in healthy persons.
which is probably true from a toxicology point of view, but not true
if taken to mean 'excessive ingestion is not associated with
negative side effects'. This is almost like reading Clintons speach:
the letter of it is true, but it's designed to give a different, and
untrue impression.

> If you wanted to "read" something into it from the biases of our
> listserv, it says humans can do well on relatively small amounts of carbohydrates.
Not really - it say humans can, but warns about ketosis,
protein breakdown, dehydration and loss of cations, and
gives the amounts of carbs that would 'overcome' it. Curiously, it
ALMOST appears to say 'carb-free diets will make you lose fat but you can
avoid it by eating as little as 50-100gm of carbs a day'.
> Deficiency: There is no absolute requirement for dietary carbohydrate.
> However, in the absence of dietary sugars and starch, stored fat
> (triacyglyceride) is released via lipolysis and is oxidized for energy.
> This increases ketone body formation and may produce ketosis. A
> carbohydrate-free diet is associated with an increase in protein
> breakdown, dehydration and loss of cations. The effect of a low
> carbohydrate diet can be overcome by a daily intake of as little as 50-100
> g carbohydrate.

Ilya

ATOM RSS1 RSS2