Re: Lowcarbing for decades?

Ignoramus19260 said:

I completely see benefits of low carbing as far as "lose weight and
look great" is concerned. After all, I also lost weight on a limited
carb diet (that was also portion controlled). Now I am mainly
interested in how to maintain my present condition for decades, year
in and year out, one day at a time, so that after 30 years I am as
healthy as possible. That is the question. I hope that you understand
the agony of making a decision with incomplete information, but yet I
cannot postpone this decision as I need to eat every day.

i

Ig,

I do believe it is the safest, best way to eat long term, but, as you
say, there is incomplete information.

It is agonizing, I am sure. I would say, as in life, we end up doing
what we think is best with what information is available at the time.

Dr. Atkins ate this way (maintenance) for many years....decades. It
seemed to work well for him.

Maybe it's not as an exact science as some of us think it has to be.
The percentages and ratios and calories, etc. Perhaps it's different
for each person.

I think as time goes on you will know "where" your own body feels the
best- what percentage of this and that- and you will fine-tune it.
Then you will relax and be more comfortable with whatever you decide
to do.

PoohBear

Ignoramus19260 wrote:
|| In article <[email hidden]>, poohbear
|| wrote:
||| On 19 Jul 2004 20:20:31 GMT, Ignoramus19260
||| <[email hidden]> wrote:
|||
|||
|||| What I am concerned is that if I adopt this regimen, and follow it
|||| for a long time (think 50 years), would I hurt myself in any
|||| way?That seems a bit too radical for me. It seems counterintuitive
|||| that one could live a long life on a radical diet.
||||
||| Hi Ig,
|||
||| The question (to me) is: Who gets to define "radical"?
||| This is sort of like the "eat a balanced diet" comments that people
||| make. Who gets to define balanced?
||
|| An excellent question. Is 30/30/40 balaned? Is 25/25/50% balanced?
|| What is best? Hard to draw the line. But, I think, when one
|| macronutrient is so low as to be, say, 8% of calories (50 grams of
|| carbs in a 2500 calorie diet), that is radical to me.

Based on your own biases. I'd say it really depends on your exercise level
and intensity.

||
||| I purport that eating low-carb is balanced and reasonable. Eating
||| high carb is unbalanced and radical.
||
|| I completely see benefits of low carbing as far as "lose weight and
|| look great" is concerned. After all, I also lost weight on a limited
|| carb diet (that was also portion controlled). Now I am mainly
|| interested in how to maintain my present condition for decades, year
|| in and year out, one day at a time, so that after 30 years I am as
|| healthy as possible. That is the question. I hope that you understand
|| the agony of making a decision with incomplete information, but yet I
|| cannot postpone this decision as I need to eat every day.

Can you pinpoint one time in history where someone could expect to have
complete information to make a real decision on how to eat for optimal
health? I venture to say you never will, either. You used the word "agony"
in your statement...it makes me think you're overboard on this, Ig. You can
go to all this trouble trying to find exactly the right diet to prolong your
life and condition for decades (an impossibility) only to find that you'll
get [censored] slapped by life. Do what feels right to you and quit worrying
about it. Fretting will steal your happiness.

||
|| i

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

life and condition for decades (an impossibility) only to find that you'll
get [censored] slapped by life. Do what feels right to you and quit worrying
about it. Fretting will steal your happiness.

Seconded. Ride motorcycles Ig. It puts both those things into perspective
:-)

--
Peace,
Pen
--
Pawbreakers - The Candy for Cats!
http://www.pawbreakers.com

Ignoramus19260 said:

An excellent question. Is 30/30/40 balaned? Is 25/25/50% balanced?
What is best? Hard to draw the line. But, I think, when one
macronutrient is so low as to be, say, 8% of calories (50 grams of
carbs in a 2500 calorie diet), that is radical to me.

Only because of where you've drawn the arbitrary lines between types
of food energy sources. Instead of looking at the carb/fat/protein
balance, divide your foods according to the four food groups, or the
seven levels of the USDA pyramid, or by color, or by RDA of
significant nutrients, and you'll get different percentages each way.
All of those (well, maybe not the colors) are or have been considered
useful ways to determine "balance" in a diet, and they would certainly
not all give the same results for a particular person's diet. You
could have a "perfect" 33/33/33 split, for example, and still get zero
vitamin A, if you did it just wrong.

Someone who drinks a lot of soda (Many years ago, I drank a six-pack
of Mountain Dew every day. It's a wonder I survived.) may get as much
as 30% of his calories from soda. If he stops drinking soda
completely, is that "radical"?

Cutting carbs isn't radical because carbs have no nutritional value.
Unlike proteins and fats, carbs aren't used to build anything in your
body. Carbs do two things. They provide energy which can be burned
or stored as fat -- but protein and fat also do this. Carbs also
trigger certain hormonal reactions (or in most people, over-reactions)
which are biologically unnecessary in a reasonably healthy person. So
lowering carbs for good is no more radical than giving up alcohol --
another energy source that has no nutritional value.

--
Aaron -- [email hidden] -- 285/225/200

"Burma is one of these multi-ethnic places, and that usually means
trouble. My Social Studies teachers used to talk about the
wonderfulness of multi-ethnic stuff, but let's be honest here: what
multi-ethnic really means is if your car breaks down in the wrong
neighborhood, you get beaten to death with your own tire iron." -- The
War Nerd