|
|
123 of 123 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A well-grounded arguement for low-carb, plus much more., December 9, 2000
Dr. Michael Eades and Mary Dan Eades, M.D.'s have written a follow-up to their popular "Protein Power" published in 1995. The Eades are a husband-and-wife team that has a joint practice where they dish out the same advice as in their books - that of a restricted carbohydrate diet. But unlike the much more popular Dr. Atkins Diet, the Eades concentrate much more on gaining the best nutritional bang for your buck. Like their first book it is well organized with helpful summaries of each chapter, but it also delves into different subjects like exercise, meditation and even sunbathing."Protein Power Lifeplan" is not simply a diet book, but more of a nutritional and health philosophy. The Eades underline their main low-carbohydrate philosophy throughout the book, which, for the uneducated goes something like this: it is not fat that makes us fat, gives us diseases like diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc. Rather it is sugar. Starches, since they are basically the same thing as sugar (just chained together and easily broken into their component sugars in the digestive process), are counted as well. The Eades describe how the body produces the hormone insulin when carbs are ingested. The more carbs we have in our diet, the more insulin is produced. Insulin is used by the body to remove sugar from the bloodstream, where it can cause harm. Unfortunately, the insulin that removes it can also cause harm in excessive amounts. In addition, when exposed to these large amounts of insulin, the body slowly becomes more and more resistant to the hormone and the body has to produce more of it to have the same effect, so it is a vicious cycle. The end of this cycle results when the body is so resistant that it simply can't produce enough and adult onset diabetes occurs. The other main theme sounded throughout the book is the whole idea that humans are not made for consuming the amount of carbs that we do today. The Eades make a good argument, which has been made by others, that agriculture is only a ten-thousand-year-old innovation, and that before this our ancestors were all hunter-gatherers, consuming primarily animals with perhaps a few wild vegetables nuts, seeds, and berries thrown in. Due to the slow pace of evolution and natural selection, they argue, our bodies have not caught up to the last ten thousand years of vastly increased carbohydrates in our diets from the farming of grains. They point out that anthropological finds bear out that those who lived before the advent of agriculture display strong bones, tall statures, perfect teeth and jaws, and no evidence of the diseases of modern man. On the contrary, even the inhabitants of ancient Egypt five thousand or so years ago, who lived on a mainly vegetarian, grain-based diet, show (or their mummies do, I should say), evidence of diabetes, heart disease, gum disease, crumbling bones, and many other maladies. As far as the diet itself, the Eades have honed it somewhat. They now suggest three different approaches to the diet, so called "hedonist," "dilettante," and "purist." The main differences are in how strict the diets are to the Paleolithic Ideal, so to speak. So purists would not eat any dairy products or grains, and only range-reared meat or wild game, since the alternatives would not have been available to their ancient ancestors. The diet starts out at an "intervention stage" which allots seven to ten grams of carbs per meal. Once the person is no longer experiencing health problems, or has gotten close to their goal weight/body fat percentage, they would go on the transition plan, which increases carbs by about 50%. Finally, after you've gotten to exactly the place you want body-wise and health-wise and don't need added improvement, you go onto the "maintenance" level, which doubles, give or take, the transition level of carbs. Despite certain vocal dissenters like Dr. Dean Ornish, the AMA, and ADA, there are an increasing number of medical doctors and nutritionists who are starting to appreciate the validitiy of the low-carb philosophy. I was shocked to learn that the whole idea behind fat causing all these health problems in the first place is just that - an IDEA. It is a hypothesis that the whole medical industry latched onto 25 or 30 years ago, because it made some logical sense at the time, and has only recently started to let go on the edges despite there being absolutely no proof that low fat diets are conducive to health, and many that indicate the exact opposite! There are many cliché criticisms that get foisted on low-carb diets and the Eades tackle many of them, including the "vampire myths" ( myths that won't die) that these diets cause kidney problems in otherwise healthy individuals, or that the Chinese (who eat a primarily rice-based diet) do not suffer from much heart disease, etc. Yet these myths are constantly invoked by those who have convinced themselves that their philosophy is right and this one is wrong. Unfortunately, these individuals never research whether studies bear their claims out, nor are most even willing to read the full argument of the "other side". I have an idea as to why this may be the case. One of the first adherents of low-carb diets in recent times has been Dr. Robert Atkins, and his attitude is so combative (unlike the Eades who are so open-minded as to even admit to being wrong about some things they said in their previous book), that it encourages those who oppose him to be equally as combative and close-minded. Do yourself a favor and read something with a refreshingly even-handed tone. Whether you agree with their overall philosophies or not, there is a lot of helpful information on vitamins and minerals and other topics which do not require you to change your diet, despite my own opinion that it would be in your best interest to do so.
|