Other Problems With the High-Carbohydrate Diet

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

The High-Carbohydrate Diet is Associated with All Kinds of Bad Effects

The high-carbohydrate diet that’s in vogue today doesn’t represent a balanced diet.

Dr. Jan Karlsson, one of the original developers of the carbohydrate-loading regimen so popular among current-day athletes, has argued vehemently against a high-carbohydrate diet as a regular, everyday regimen.

He claims that such a diet is only acceptable for two or, at most, four days within the framework of the carbohydrate and muscle glycogen loading program.

Of course, if the body was fat-adapted, there would be no need to ever do glycogen loading, but this point has been thoroughly missed by everyone.

The carbohydrate-enriched diet leading to muscle glycogen loading has been widely accepted since the late 1960’s as an important way to prepare for endurance sports and training.

The dietary program, however, was to be applied only occasionally. Unfortunately, it was developed into a long-term treatment program and was used, not only by elite cross-country skiers and long-distance runners, but also by professional athletes in many different sports.

Even International Organizations such as the International Olympic Committee Medical Commission Recommended the Use of the High-Carbohydrate Diet for Athletes

Dr. Karlsson has stated that such long-term dietary regimens are synonymous with malnutrition. It has been shown that the intake of lipophilic (fat-loving) nutrients such as vitamin E is linearly related to fat intake.

Other risks are associated with such an extreme high-carbohydrate diet if followed for a long time. In fact, this dietary regimen means that individuals may actually sacrifice their own structural lipids (fats) for energy needs.

Vitamin Q and vitamin E are significant factors for the health of white blood cells; they’re the cells that are richest in antioxidants and, consequently, enhance the immune system. Significant immune system suppression is a possible result of low dietary intake of fats and the consequent use of one’s own fat stores as an energy source.

Athletes, with an extremely high intake of carbohydrates and, hence, subsequent impaired intake of lipid-based or lipophilic nutrients, have been in a situation referred to as the Carbohydrate Syndrome or the Carbohydrate Trap.

It seems reasonable to assume that this condition might:

•  reduce free radical elimination and lead to damage in muscles
•  increase cell injury
• inhibit the body’s inflammation and healing process in response to injury and infection
• hard-training athletes, who follow a high-carbohydrate diet, will suffer from overuse injuries due to a decreased ability to repair and rebuild damaged tissues
• vegetarians and others who consume a low-fat diet are also at serious risk for the same type of damage

People Who Have Extreme Energy Needs, such as Athletes and Those Involved in Manual Labor, Must be Very Careful About the Sources of  Their Daily Food Intake

If foods rich in carbohydrates come to serve as their primary source of energy, their risk of suffering from an insufficient supply of nutrients will increase.

Fats contain many of the essential nutrients we need each day to maintain our health. As I have proposed for many years, the low-fat diet is dangerous.

Sports medicine authorities have just recently recognized the existence of the Carbohydrate Trap or fat-phobia. The Carbohydrate Trap represents a stage of malnutrition imposed by unprofessional advisors and followed by unwitting, unknowledgeable clients.

This is one of the major difficulties in nutrition today: the emphasis on the low-fat diet in contrast to a diet that maintains an adequate fat intake.

How long will it take until our medical and scientific “experts” recognize the folly of their recommendation of low-fat eating?

Is Red Meat the Deadly Scourge It’s Said to Be?

A New Study Published in the Archives of Internal Medicine Once Again Claims the Dangers of Eating Red Meat

It says that over 10 years, eating the equivalent of a quarter-pound hamburger daily gave men a 22 percent higher RISK of dying of  cancer and a 27 percent higher RISK of dying of heart disease.

Red meat must be vilified. This is the way of the modern nutrition era where science/medicine and religion have joined to condemn what has been a staple of human nutrition for more than 2 million years.

Ten to fifteen thousand years ago, as the earth was running out of meat, the rulers wanted it for themselves. So, they enlisted religious leaders to tell the people to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables, writes Dr. Marvin Harris in his classic, Cows, Witches, and Pigs.

People were told that eating meat was sinful and damnation was the only outcome.

This attitude is like a damaged gene and when science, nay, medicine, joined the parade, we now had a double-team to tell us how bad meat was for our health.

No matter that all EXPERIMENTAL studies indicate no problems with meat, these endless EPIDEMIOLOGICAL studies continue to demonize our habits of daily living.

These studies are, in fact, designed to provide fame and fortune for the researchers, but they serve only to delude the public. The sad medical journals, who are clueless about statistical analysis, unwittingly publish this garbage.

The researchers have no idea that their results aren’t transparent because this is the way of all research today.

I wrote about this in a previous post, the story about RELATIVE RISK statistics vs. ABSOLUTE RATES or FREQUENCIES.

The authors do not provide ABSOLUTE numbers, but only describe RISK.

This is not RATES of disease and only RATES or FREQUENCIES allow transparent understanding.

So, let’s say that in the high red meat eaters, 1.25 out of a thousand died of heart disease during 10 years.

The RATE of death is 0.125% and that’s not even spreading it over the 10 years of the analysis. But, in the low-eating-red-meat group, let’s say 1 out of a thousand die of heart disease and that’s 0.1%.

We don’t know what the actual numbers are because papers no longer publish these numbers, if they did, the results would be transparent, and they don’t want that.

However, the difference between those RATES (0.1% and 0.125%), if we don’t include the denominator of 1,000 for each group and only compare the numerators, is a 25% difference, i.e. 0.125% is 25% greater than 0.1% and that’s what’s called RISK.

So, the actual RATE difference of 0.025% is magnified to a RISK difference of 25%, 1,000 times higher than it actually is!

That’s how it goes, that’s how the cover-up goes.

Of further interest is that another study was recently published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition USING THE SAME TYPE OF ANALYSIS. It found completely different results. Title: Consumption of red or processed meat does not predict risk factors for coronary heart disease: results from a cohort of British adults in 1989 and 1999.

Look, I live on red meat, it’s about all I eat. I’ve studied this subject for more than 40 years. I have every study ever done. We know that paleolithic man ate 99% of his calories as meat.

If meat is so deadly, why are any of us around?

Well, if you buy into this nonsense, then that justs leaves more meat for me and mine.

Fortunately, I’m an insider to all this and can analyze these studies simply because they cannot pull the wool over my eyes. Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer descibes all this very clearly in his book Calculated Risks.

And 50 years ago a wonderful litte book, How to Lie with Statistics, came out describing the shenanigans used to keep people’s vision cloudy. Don’t be had.

I hope this insight helps you avoid being deluded. And worse than that, driving you toward becoming a vegan zealot.

I’ll have my rib-eye rare, thank you very much.