The low carb debate: the problems with both sides

[Jay Rawd]

Usually low carb fiends like to post up a bunch of pubmed studies and others that show that low carb diets result in the greatest fat loss and muscle maintenance. Supposedly this proves that the low carb diet is some miracle working diet that puts one in the best ever condition.

But I see some problems. Here they are:


Studies done on low carb diets always compare them to lower protein diets. The low carb diets are always higher in protein. Of course this will result in a greater thermic effect and also in maintaining nitrogen balance. When they do a study of a low carb diet high in protein and a higher carb diet also high in protein, then I'll believe the propaganda pushed forth.
People who post these studies almost always do so in favor of ketogenic diets. But low carb doesn't mean ketogenic. Not only that, but low carb is relative. If I bulk on 600 grams of carbs, dropping them down to 300 is a big drop and can be considered "low" considering my previous diet.
Some low carb proponents are stupid enough to promote the idea that insulin spikes can actually cause muscle loss since fat oxidation is stopped. Insulin may stop it, but it is also anabolic and anti-catabolic. Did you stop burning fat? Yes. Did you also save your hard earned muscle mass? Absolutely.
Low carb proponents in favor of stopping insulin production seem to ignore the fact that the insulin index can cover non-carb foods like meat.


Also, those in favor of higher carb diets also make idiotic mistakes:


They always mention the death of Robert Atkins. He died from head trauma, not ketosis.
They claim that the body needs carbs. There is no physiological need for carbohydrates. At all. Sure, carbs are OPTIMAL in the face of anaerobic exercise, since glycogen is readily available, but the average couch potato could never eat carbs again and be fine.
They claim that eating additional protein damages kidneys. This only does this to people who bad kidneys.
They claim that eating additional fat causes extra fat storage (even in the face of lower calorie intakes!) in addition to wrecking lipid profiles.
I've even heard claims of low carb diets leading to diabetes.


Hopefully, we can realize that alot of us are idiots with an agenda and that all diets work and nothing is optimal for everyone. Some guys may have to drop their carbs to 20 to get ripped, others to 150, and Layne Norton even mentioned one guy getting absolutely shredded on 298 grams of carbs. Nothing is the best when it comes to diet approaches. If low carb diets win in studies, they are matched against low protein diets all the time. Just remember that. Protein is key, the rest is up to you.

[determined4000]

Low carb diets do promote "weight" loss (half sarcastic here)
1. Water weight is huge initially
2. People are simply eating fewer calories.
The typical American will easily down over 400 calories of pasta (1.5 cups) at dinner as a part of their meal. Whne they cut this out and replace it with more meat or low carb fibrous vegetables I highly doubt they will end up eating 400 calories worth. Same can be said if they eat bagels or bakery muffins at breakfast or grinders/pizza at lunch.

Although you said carbs aren't essential (which is true) like fats and protein cutting carbs can have its detriments because of a lack of vitamins minerals fiber etc. that you get from the fruits vegetables and whole grains you will end up cutting out.
Many low carb diets are also unhealthy because of saturated fat intake. I know so people pew-pew this. Although new research shows dietary cholesterol intake does not affect cholesterol levels negatively, this can not be said about saturated fat which has historically been linked to many diseases and increased risks of cancer. People mix the two up because many foods containing one has the other.
I personally eat a moderate carb diet partly because I am hypoglycemic. I don't eat refined sugars/ processed carbs. I do not subscribe to the theory that all carbs or fats or proteins are equal because they are not.
Just my 2.5976 cents.

[Jay Rawd]

Well, no, you're pretty much adding to the problem. Low carb diets do cause fat loss, not just water loss.

Not to mention that low carb does not necessarily mean high saturated fat. When I did my ketogenic diet with 5% Carb calories (lowest I dropped was 20 grams), the majority of my fat came from monounsaturated sources.

Again, low carb doesn't necessarily mean high fat or even high saturated fat.

[determined4000]

Well, no, you're pretty much adding to the problem. Low carb diets do cause fat loss, not just water loss.

Not to mention that low carb does not necessarily mean high saturated fat. When I did my ketogenic diet with 5% Carb calories (lowest I dropped was 20 grams), the majority of my fat came from monounsaturated sources.

Again, low carb doesn't necessarily mean high fat or even high saturated fat.

well if you hold fat constant and shift calories from carbs to protein, then your body needs to use more calories to convert the calories to energy--> lower calorie balance-> fat loss. So in that sense yes it would.
And most people do not stick with monounsaturated fats. A quick glance through the Keto thread will tell you that. Again the average joe,thinks he can just eat more bacon, sausage, etc and he will lose weight as long as he doenst eat fruit and vegetables. i am pretty much in favor of any diet (macro ratios) that enable you to get all your necessary nutrients. Sometimes i am very low carb but can still get all I need because I am eating a lot of nutrient dense vegetables for all my carbs. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it. If you were doing it the right way, more power to you. However I also don't believe that you have to go low carb to get cut.

[Jay Rawd]

Then there's also the question of what low carb actually means. Some think keto, others think less than 1 g/lb, others think that anything below 300 grams is low carb.

However, most studies I've seen tend to hover around the gram per lb. or less mark, and some of those studies were based on keto diets.

[gekkoboy14]

whats your take on frequent elevations in insulin, say 5x per day due to higher carb intake and its effect on fat loss

[Jay Rawd]

whats your take on frequent elevations in insulin, say 5x per day due to higher carb intake and its effect on fat loss
Well if you're eating frequently then I believe the whole insulin spike is barely even an issue since the blood sugar levels are stable and not valleys and peaks.

However, even if it was, having insulin around in a caloric deficit is a good thing since it could potentially save your hard earned mass. But if it can't, then you're burning off the fat anyway. It's really a win-win situation. Okay, so maybe you didn't burn that much fat, but you also saved that much muscle. Or maybe you didn't get the anti-catabolic effect but you still burned fat.

It's really a non-issue. I just don't see the point of taking away a protein sparing macro that in addition to fueling workouts is very tasty.

[Beast21]

How can you say that carbs aren't needed by the body? The brain is a glucose user. It can ONLY burn carbohydrates.

[bp16]

How can you say that carbs aren't needed by the body? The brain is a glucose user. It can ONLY burn carbohydrates.

Some glucose is needed, but most (or all... forget) of the required glucose is produced by the liver. The brain still uses glucose the body produces, but can also use ketones. So carbs as in dietary carbohydrates are not needed.

[johnnyironboard]

Usually low carb fiends like to post up a bunch of pubmed studies and others that show that low carb diets result in the greatest fat loss and muscle maintenance. Supposedly this proves that the low carb diet is some miracle working diet that puts one in the best ever condition.

But I see some problems. Here they are:


Studies done on low carb diets always compare them to lower protein diets. The low carb diets are always higher in protein. Of course this will result in a greater thermic effect and also in maintaining nitrogen balance. When they do a study of a low carb diet high in protein and a higher carb diet also high in protein, then I'll believe the propaganda pushed forth.
People who post these studies almost always do so in favor of ketogenic diets. But low carb doesn't mean ketogenic. Not only that, but low carb is relative. If I bulk on 600 grams of carbs, dropping them down to 300 is a big drop and can be considered "low" considering my previous diet.
Some low carb proponents are stupid enough to promote the idea that insulin spikes can actually cause muscle loss since fat oxidation is stopped. Insulin may stop it, but it is also anabolic and anti-catabolic. Did you stop burning fat? Yes. Did you also save your hard earned muscle mass? Absolutely.
Low carb proponents in favor of stopping insulin production seem to ignore the fact that the insulin index can cover non-carb foods like meat.


Also, those in favor of higher carb diets also make idiotic mistakes:


They always mention the death of Robert Atkins. He died from head trauma, not ketosis.
They claim that the body needs carbs. There is no physiological need for carbohydrates. At all. Sure, carbs are OPTIMAL in the face of anaerobic exercise, since glycogen is readily available, but the average couch potato could never eat carbs again and be fine.
They claim that eating additional protein damages kidneys. This only does this to people who bad kidneys.
They claim that eating additional fat causes extra fat storage (even in the face of lower calorie intakes!) in addition to wrecking lipid profiles.
I've even heard claims of low carb diets leading to diabetes.


Hopefully, we can realize that alot of us are idiots with an agenda and that all diets work and nothing is optimal for everyone. Some guys may have to drop their carbs to 20 to get ripped, others to 150, and Layne Norton even mentioned one guy getting absolutely shredded on 298 grams of carbs. Nothing is the best when it comes to diet approaches. If low carb diets win in studies, they are matched against low protein diets all the time. Just remember that. Protein is key, the rest is up to you.


All I know is I've tried it all and for the last ten years have been doing a CKD and it's "the secret" as far as I'm concerned. I could care less who published what and who studied this and that...I know what I've tried and I know what has worked for me.

[PopeGregorius]

How can you say that carbs aren't needed by the body? The brain is a glucose user. It can ONLY burn carbohydrates.

Good lord go bak to sleep. Your brain can use glucose or ketones. Protein can be converted to glucose by gluconeogenesis.

[Jay Rawd]

All I know is I've tried it all and for the last ten years have been doing a CKD and it's "the secret" as far as I'm concerned. I could care less who published what and who studied this and that...I know what I've tried and I know what has worked for me.
Yup, let's eliminate every discussion on science simply because it's all about "find wat werkz 4 u!"

[Distance]

The bigger problem is that every individual is going to speak with some bias based on how they personally eat.

[nathanbailey]

The bigger problem is that every individual is going to speak with some bias based on how they personally eat.

which is why you need science involved!! that way when someone has a bias you can shut them down!! you will still get the stubborn "i dont carez about science.. what has it ever done for me" crap....

[rekatsinas]

Okay. Here's my two cents. You eat carbohydrates, insulin goes up, you're in storage mode. How can one burn fat when one is in storage mode? Very difficult!

BUT, it is possible. That's one side.

The next side is...there is no difference. It is all about the caloric deficit. Calories in versus calories out. This is where I lean more towards (no pun intended). I guarantee you all that if you eat above your maintenace calories on a ketogenic diet you WILL gain fat.

The reason why some people prefer ketogenic diets is because of the hunger elimination. Let's look at an example...

A man weighing 165 pounds with 20% body fat. His lean mass is 130 pounds. His maintenace calories is calculated using Tom Venuto's forumla:

370 + (21.6 * LBM)
370 + 21.6 * 59kg = 1644.4

Multiply this by his activity factor...say he exercises 3-5 x per week...

1644.4 * 1.55 = approx. 2500 calories.

NOW...whether this is 40/40/20, 40/30/30, 50/30/20, 25/50/25, or 65/30/5.......you STILL have to create a deficit. You STILL have to subtract 500 calories from your maintenance calories, or 20% off. It makes NO difference whether you're ketogenic or low carb or high carb or moderate carb. The general rule is to avoid extremes of the spectrum.

Now back to our example...

On a ketogenic diet (65% Fat, 30% Protein, 5% Carbs), this man would need:
160g Fat
130g Protein
<20g Carbohydrates

On a regular 50/30/20 diet this man would need...
250g Carbohydrates
150g Protein
44g Fat

NOW PAY ATTENTION. FAT LOSSIS STARTED ONCE (on a ketogenic diet) ALL DIETRY FAT IS BURNED OFF.....AND ON A REGULAR DIET, WHEN THE CARBS ARE BURNED OFFF. Now look at the fat calories of the ketogenic diet...they are 1440 calores (160g). Now look at the calories of the carbs on the regular diet...they are 1000 calories (250g).

So...let's conclude. This shows that you will have a less amount of energy to burn through before you burn your fat for fuel on high carb diets.

In the end, it's about the DEFICIT. Not whether it's low carb or ketogenic. There is nothing special or magical about being in ketosis. They always say you "use your own fat for fuel." WELL WHAT ARE YOU USING TO BURN FAT WHEN YOU'RE ON A MODERATE OR HIGH CARB DIET?!!?

I don't know why this low carb debate still continues. It really isn't rocket science to figure out that it's the deficit matters and nothing else.

[johnnyironboard]

Yup, let's eliminate every discussion on science simply because it's all about "find wat werkz 4 u!"


Where is your Science- low carb diets are the best fat loss diets period. You watched an episode of "House" so now you think you are smart??

I see nothing but "contrived observations" in your opening monologue.

[johnnyironboard]

and Layne Norton even mentioned one guy getting absolutely shredded on 298 grams of carbs. Nothing is the best when it comes to diet approaches. If low carb diets win in studies, they are matched against low protein diets all the time. Just remember that. Protein is key, the rest is up to you.

Hey mom looked what I read on the internet- I'm gonna post as an expert.

[johnnyironboard]

Protein is key, the rest is up to you.

So "enough" protein is the magic bullet?

The rest is up to me.....I thought doing what was best for me got me dissed....

[johnnyironboard]

, and Layne Norton even mentioned one guy getting absolutely shredded on 298 grams of carbs.

On page 382 of the April 2009 Muscular Development Lee Preist says how he used to diet on 200 to 400 grams of carbs per day... he also said he worked with weights twice per day and did cardio two to three times per day while doing this.

I only have time for weights and cardio once per day so I'll stick to keeping my carbs low.

[TaoistWarrior]

which is why you need science involved!! that way when someone has a bias you can shut them down!! you will still get the stubborn "i dont carez about science.. what has it ever done for me" crap....

If only this were true. But it's not. Having a study in your pocket doesn't guarantee you are right, but it can convince you (and others) that you are. It comes down to how that study is interpreted by the individual. That is subjective and variable, and therefore not definitive.

Let me give you an example, from this thread and from a larger perspective.

1. This thread: Jay refers to studies on low-carb diets and interprets them to mean that protein is key. I.E. the difference between a high-carb and low-carb diet, and the fat-loss difference, rests with the protein content.

2. Countless studies show that people who eat higher amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol have higher levels of heart disease. Scientific authorities and the public interpret them to mean it is the saturated fat and cholesterol of the diets that is having this effect.

In both cases, an interpretation is made from the data which may not be correct or complete. Thus the discussion continues. That's a good thing.

Just too bad so much 'tude is often included along the way.

[Distance]

which is why you need science involved!! that way when someone has a bias you can shut them down!! you will still get the stubborn "i dont carez about science.. what has it ever done for me" crap....

Treating nutrition as a hard science is basically impossible to do. For example how would a researcher isolate the variable of fat intake without either increasing the variable of calories or decreasing the variable of either carbs or protein? If you can't isolate simple variables like these how can you really tell what exactly causes what?

The other problem is that in the field of nutrition many proffesionals seem to view correlational studies as proof of cause and effect. These correlational studies are easily manipulated by statistics and the reported results can subsequently be framed around the researchers biases.

Money is another huge factor, it costs a ton to conduct a tightly controlled trial. It is much easier and cheaper to just say there is no need for that, we already "proved" it (imo this is what is going on with the saturated fat causes heart disease hypothesis).

[reefpicker]

This post is full of misconceptions.

First, glucose is needed by the body. It is the preferred substrate of the brain and at the cellular level it is the only substrate that is available to red cells in your blood. There is more to this story but I will leave it there. Glucose is the "common" energy currency of the human body.

All diets can be shown to work. The long-term effects on health are another issue.

Also, keep in mind that insulin "spikes" occur naturally. Contrary to what has been suggested in this thread, glucose levels do go up and down as part of their normal daily cycle. They are kept pretty much even but not constant. This is why the only way to know if you are diabetic is to do a glucose tolerance test (or challenge). Post-pandrial levels of glucose are usually elevated, so it is hard to know if someone has a healthy level of sugar or not... Pre-pandrial levels also don't tell you a lot either.... They can be high or low.

Finally, this statement is unsupported:

low carb diets are the best fat loss diets period.

There are many things wrong with it. First, define low-carb!? That is such a relative term!! I think someone in the thread mentioned this, and it is true. The first problem with this back-and-forth argument is that you need to define what low carb is.

Second, if the diet is isocaloric, then reducing carb means increasing something else. Thus, diets are either low-carb; low-fat; and hence high in protein or low-fat, low-protein and high carb, or high-fat, with low-carb and low protein (Atkins). Keep in mind that "low" and "high" are very relative.

Ketogenic diets are old. They are not new. So is the low-carb concept. There is nothing wrong with either diet, as a short-term method to achieve fat loose.

What works best is what works best for you. Something that you can stick to.

There is always going to be controversies about the long-term health impact of any diet. The debate will always be an on-going one.

To have an intelligent debate about this, we would need long-term, controlled, studies on diets of one kind vs. the others.

And let's not forget that fiber and minerals and other aspects of nutrition may also play a role in the success of these diets.

[ExCompetitor]

Great post reefpicker.As for myself cycling high and low protein days is best.There are many advantages to this:
1 Transport of amino acids into the muscle is improved during first 3 high pro days.
2 Next 3 Low pro days stimulate anti proteolytic(anti-catabolic) mechanisms as liver proteins decline before muscle proteins.
3 Cycling protein drives fats to fuel muscle tissue(nutrient repartitioning)
4 You can consume more calories because of thermogenesis and thyroid stimulating effects during hypocaloric conditions.
5 High Protein intake stimulates the release of glucagon,opposing the effects of insulin.
I could go on and on.....

[TaoistWarrior]

This post is full of misconceptions.

First, glucose is needed by the body. It is the preferred substrate of the brain and at the cellular level it is the only substrate that is available to red cells in your blood. There is more to this story but I will leave it there. Glucose is the "common" energy currency of the human body.

All diets can be shown to work. The long-term effects on health are another issue.

Also, keep in mind that insulin "spikes" occur naturally. Contrary to what has been suggested in this thread, glucose levels do go up and down as part of their normal daily cycle. They are kept pretty much even but not constant. This is why the only way to know if you are diabetic is to do a glucose tolerance test (or challenge). Post-pandrial levels of glucose are usually elevated, so it is hard to know if someone has a healthy level of sugar or not... Pre-pandrial levels also don't tell you a lot either.... They can be high or low.

Finally, this statement is unsupported:


There are many things wrong with it. First, define low-carb!? That is such a relative term!! I think someone in the thread mentioned this, and it is true. The first problem with this back-and-forth argument is that you need to define what low carb is.

Second, if the diet is isocaloric, then reducing carb means increasing something else. Thus, diets are either low-carb; low-fat; and hence high in protein or low-fat, low-protein and high carb, or high-fat, with low-carb and low protein (Atkins). Keep in mind that "low" and "high" are very relative.

Ketogenic diets are old. They are not new. So is the low-carb concept. There is nothing wrong with either diet, as a short-term method to achieve fat loose.

What works best is what works best for you. Something that you can stick to.

There is always going to be controversies about the long-term health impact of any diet. The debate will always be an on-going one.

To have an intelligent debate about this, we would need long-term, controlled, studies on diets of one kind vs. the others.

And let's not forget that fiber and minerals and other aspects of nutrition may also play a role in the success of these diets.

You make some good points/clarifications. Here are a few thoughts.

1. Yes, glucose is needed by the body, anyone who argues the opposite is plain wrong.

However, the body's need for glucose is an entirely separate issue from the body's need for dietary carbohydrate. Said glucose does not need to come from large quantities dietary carbohydrate. The body is quite capable of making this glucose on it's own. And bottom line, there are no essential carbohydrates. Only essential fatty acids and amino acids.

2. It is true that low-carbohydrate diets are not new. In fact, they are the oldest type of diet in existence on our planet for the majority of the human race. We have been eating low-carbohydrate, high protein/fat diets for tens of thousands of years. The low-carb diet (and agreed, this is often not well-defined) is far, far older than the modern diet. This modern diet of the last 100 or so years is based around highly processed grain, synthetic additives and compounds, simple sugars, and pasteurized dairy. The body is not as practiced at metabolizing this "stuff" as it is at food sources which are more natural to us.

3. Yes, we absolutely need studies to make clear the health effects of BOTH kinds of diets- but let's face it, rising levels of obesity, cancers, heart disease, diabetes, and other health problems that have resulted from the modern diet, while not constituting a study, do not suggest that things have been going well for us.

Meanwhile, people like the Inuit who eat almost no carbohydrate but tons of fat and protein suffer almost none of these problems. So we have to be careful about inferring that this "alien" diet could have long-term health consequences when the modern diet does not exactly enjoy a proven track record for long-term health. Does this make the issue definitive? No. But it raises some damn interesting questions, questions that many don't want to ask because the answers could shake the very dietary foundations of our culture and turn a lot of sacred nutritional ideas on their heads.

A lot of people engage in unhealthy variations of low-carb diets, and this can lead opponents to say "See, it's not healthy." That is illogical. What Joe Low-Carb does when he goes off the reservation on some goofy quest for this or that does not indicate a failure of the diet, it indicates a failure of Joe Low-Carb.

4. While we don't have long-term studies yet, we have short-term controlled comparative studies that tend to be quite favorable to low-carbohydrate diets as regards health markers, fat loss, and muscle preservation.

5. The construction of studies comparing diets has been less than satisfactory on the whole, that's for sure. But nobody is claiming that all these cool effects of low-carbohydrate diets are due solely to carbohydrate restriction. A low-carbohydrate diet is necessarily higher in other macros, and this also has some cool effects. Nobody is denying that. It's just a lot easier to call them low-carb diets because

a. It takes to fawking long to say "low-carb, moderate protein, high fat diet"

b. Arguably the typical American diet is already moderate protein and high fat. The quantity of carbohydrate is the defining factor and it is a convenient shorthand when communicating about this way-of-eating.

[Jay Rawd]

Where is your Science- low carb diets are the best fat loss diets period. You watched an episode of "House" so now you think you are smart??

I see nothing but "contrived observations" in your opening monologue.
Post up a study where a high protein, low fat, moderate carb diet goes up against a high protein, high fat, low carb diet. To my knowledge no such thing exists.

This is getting personal for you, isn't it? U MAD

[johnnyironboard]

This is getting personal for you, isn't it? U MAD

You threw the first rock-- I won't be bullied.

[reefpicker]

You make some good points/clarifications. Here are a few thoughts.

1. Yes, glucose is needed by the body, anyone who argues the opposite is plain wrong.

However, the body's need for glucose is an entirely separate issue from the body's need for dietary carbohydrate. Said glucose does not need to come from large quantities dietary carbohydrate. The body is quite capable of making this glucose on it's own. And bottom line, there are no essential carbohydrates. Only essential fatty acids and amino acids.

2. It is true that low-carbohydrate diets are not new. In fact, they are the oldest type of diet in existence on our planet for the majority of the human race. We have been eating low-carbohydrate, high protein/fat diets for tens of thousands of years. The low-carb diet (and agreed, this is often not well-defined) is far, far older than the modern diet. This modern diet of the last 100 or so years is based around highly processed grain, synthetic additives and compounds, simple sugars, and pasteurized dairy. The body is not as practiced at metabolizing this "stuff" as it is at food sources which are more natural to us.

3. Yes, we absolutely need studies to make clear the health effects of BOTH kinds of diets- but let's face it, rising levels of obesity, cancers, heart disease, diabetes, and other health problems that have resulted from the modern diet, while not constituting a study, do not suggest that things have been going well for us.

Meanwhile, people like the Inuit who eat almost no carbohydrate but tons of fat and protein suffer almost none of these problems. So we have to be careful about inferring that this "alien" diet could have long-term health consequences when the modern diet does not exactly enjoy a proven track record for long-term health. Does this make the issue definitive? No. But it raises some damn interesting questions, questions that many don't want to ask because the answers could shake the very dietary foundations of our culture and turn a lot of sacred nutritional ideas on their heads.

A lot of people engage in unhealthy variations of low-carb diets, and this can lead opponents to say "See, it's not healthy." That is illogical. What Joe Low-Carb does when he goes off the reservation on some goofy quest for this or that does not indicate a failure of the diet, it indicates a failure of Joe Low-Carb.

4. While we don't have long-term studies yet, we have short-term controlled comparative studies that tend to be quite favorable to low-carbohydrate diets as regards health markers, fat loss, and muscle preservation.

5. The construction of studies comparing diets has been less than satisfactory on the whole, that's for sure. But nobody is claiming that all these cool effects of low-carbohydrate diets are due solely to carbohydrate restriction. A low-carbohydrate diet is necessarily higher in other macros, and this also has some cool effects. Nobody is denying that. It's just a lot easier to call them low-carb diets because

a. It takes to fawking long to say "low-carb, moderate protein, high fat diet"

b. Arguably the typical American diet is already moderate protein and high fat. The quantity of carbohydrate is the defining factor and it is a convenient shorthand when communicating about this way-of-eating.

I repped you for your post. You have some very valid points.

I agree 100% that the modern american diet, which is usually high in processed carbs, is very bad for your. Insulin resistance, heart disease, high cholesterol, and colon cancer may all be associated with the consumption of tons of bread, sweets, cakes, sugar, etc.

The Southeast Asian diet, while high in carbs is low in sugars and refined grains (such as bread). I would like to see if anyone has looked at this, but it sounds to me that the less refined foods we eat, the better (which would also apply to the Inuit diet).

I would think that a high protein, moderate carb diet, moderate fat, diet might be the best, most natural diet, but IDK.

The thing is carbs are a cheap, fast, source of energy for the human body. They are light, relatively non-perishable, source of energy too. And carb-rich foods such as rice, and yucca, potato, etc, are also easy to grow as agricultural crops. Not sure about soy, beans, peanuts and other grains, but our natural tendency and slow drift to consume carbs, might have to do with the economy and easiness of relying of them as source of energy.

[Distance]

The Southeast Asian diet, while high in carbs is low in sugars and refined grains (such as bread). I would like to see if anyone has looked at this, but it sounds to me that the less refined foods we eat, the better (which would also apply to the Inuit diet).


If you are interested here is a good several part series that looks at the Kitavans of New Guenia: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/Kitava (the first post is not specifically about them but the other 5 are great).

Basically the Kitavans eat a high carb (65% of cals), high saturated fat (17% of cals), low protein (10%) diet. They get most of their calories from tubers, fruits, coconuts, and fish. Their disease rates are very low despite have a large number of smokers.

The conclusion I see is that western diseases are brought on not by macronutrients but by sugars, grains, and processed vegetable oils. There are healthy populations out there that eat nothing but animal products (inuit and masai) and there are healthly populations that eat very few animal products (kitava and okinawans).

[johnnyironboard]

the "modern diet" really got started when the USDA started subsidizing grain... has anybody really thought about why the USDA came out with the food pyramid?? Not the AMA or the FDA but the USDA...

[TaoistWarrior]

the "modern diet" really got started when the USDA started subsidizing grain... has anybody really thought about why the USDA came out with the food pyramid?? Not the AMA or the FDA but the USDA...

Yep.

There weren't nutritionists, either, until cereal mills set up training programs for them.

[determined4000]

the "modern diet" really got started when the USDA started subsidizing grain... has anybody really thought about why the USDA came out with the food pyramid?? Not the AMA or the FDA but the USDA...

U really think the food pyramid is a government conspiracy?
They also advise against sugary processed foods (which would hurt our grain producers) and red meat consumption (hurt our cattle ranchers)

[determined4000]

The Southeast Asian diet, while high in carbs is low in sugars and refined grains (such as bread). I would like to see if anyone has looked at this, but it sounds to me that the less refined foods we eat, the better (which would also apply to the Inuit diet).

I would think that a high protein, moderate carb diet, moderate fat, diet might be the best, most natural diet, but IDK.



Scientists studying the Inuit in the 1970s found that as a group, they
suffered much less than their European counterparts from certain
diseases, such as coronary heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and
diabetes mellitus. Yet their diet was very high in fat from eating
foods like whale, seal, and salmon. Discover Magazine called this the
"Inuit Paradox."

The solution to the paradox may lie in the fact that not all fat is
created equal. "[The Inuit] ate a lot of marine animals, like walruses
and seals, whales and so forth, and the blubber of these animals is a
very high source of monounsaturated fat,"says Cordain. "So if you
contrast the Inuit diet to the Western diet, it actually turns out to
be lower in saturated fat?very high in fat, but high in healthful fat,
monounsaturates and polyunsaturates, high in a specific type of
polyunsaturates called omega-3 fatty acids that come from the marine
food chain."
http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/...-Inuit-paradox

Also agree with high-P, moderate fat/carb diet
Need fat for hormones, EFA benefits, while you can't get all the vitamins, minerals and fiber benefits without carb sources (the healthiest of which are lower in carbs anyways, i.e. fibrous veggies)

[¡STFU!ˇNˆLIFT!]

In regards to the Inuit - in my mind it would be the fact that their food is not in any way "tainted" by chemicals , feeds and hormones that are most likely stored in the fat of land animals who are farm bred .

The fat type has little to do with the fact a carbless diet is beneficial in many ways cause they are ..

[reefpicker]

In regards to the Inuit - in my mind it would be the fact that their food is not in any way "tainted" by chemicals , feeds and hormones that are most likely stored in the fat of land animals who are farm bred .

The fat type has little to do with the fact a carbless diet is beneficial in many ways cause they are ..

Carb-less diet? Read on the links and you will see that there is more to this story!!


If you are interested here is a good several part series that looks at the Kitavans of New Guenia: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/Kitava (the first post is not specifically about them but the other 5 are great).

Basically the Kitavans eat a high carb (65% of cals), high saturated fat (17% of cals), low protein (10%) diet. They get most of their calories from tubers, fruits, coconuts, and fish. Their disease rates are very low despite have a large number of smokers.

The conclusion I see is that western diseases are brought on not by macronutrients but by sugars, grains, and processed vegetable oils. There are healthy populations out there that eat nothing but animal products (inuit and masai) and there are healthly populations that eat very few animal products (kitava and okinawans).


Thanks for the links.

They reinforce the view that carb-free or low-carb diets are just a way to avoid the bad "carbs" we eat.

I also found it very interesting that leptin resistance is so central to health:


The problem of leptin resistance is well illustrated by a rat model called the Zucker fatty strain. The Zucker rat has a mutation in the leptin receptor gene, making its brain unresponsive to leptin signals. The rat's fat tissue pumps out leptin, but its brain is deaf to it. This is basically a model of severe leptin resistance, the same thing we see in obese humans. What happens to these rats? They become hyperphagic, hypometabolic, obese, develop insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Basically, severe metabolic syndrome.

This shows that leptin resistance is sufficient to cause many of the common metabolic problems that plague modern societies. In humans, it's a little known fact that leptin resistance precedes the development of obesity, insulin resistance, and impaired glucose tolerance! Furthermore, humans with leptin receptor mutations or impaired leptin production become hyperphagic and severely obese. This puts leptin at the top of my list of suspects.


From that link you provided...

Very very interesting.

I bet that colon cancer in those two groups is very rare too...

Some people could criticize these studies because they are basing the conclusion on closed populations vs. more diverse populations, but I still think that the evidence provided is pretty strong and supports the researchers hypothesis.

[ItalWHOP]

Food for thought, make of it what you will:

http://www.apinchofhealth.com/resources/lowcarb/low-carb-research.html

[Jay Rawd]

You threw the first rock-- I won't be bullied.
It's the internet, miss. Calm down.