85 replies to this topic

[Shepard]

A certain amount of all ingested protein is converted to glucose, so it's going to depend on the amount of protein ingested as to its effects on blood levels.

[JLL]

Same old low-carb reasoning. Insulin isn't the chief regulator of adipose storage. Acylation Stimulating Protein is. Chylomicrons stimulate ASP just as well as anything else.

I don't follow.

It says here that

"Following an oral fat load, a sustained significant increase in ASP occurs, whereas after an oral glucose load, ASP levels do not change significantly. These responses are entirely opposite to those of insulin, which rises sharply but transiently after an oral glucose load but is unchanged after an oral fat load."

So, when you down a bottle of olive oil and nothing else, insulin stays put but ASP rises. Also, downing a bottle of oil will not make one fat*. But if ASP is responsible for adipose storage, then a rise in ASP should result in energy being stored as fat, right?

* They even tried this in an old study, where they fed the subjects up to 5,000 kcal of different fats per day.

[Moonbeam]

* They even tried this in an old study, where they fed the subjects up to 5,000 kcal of different fats per day.

Yummy.

All the physiology is very interesting; however, when it comes down to it, it's a lot easier to eat less if you are not consuming the carbs. Low blood sugar is not something you can ignore, and that is not a problem with a high fat and protein diet. It may or may not be the healthiest in the long run, but there's something to be said for not having that sort of hunger, if you can get into the swing of low-carb. I know the studies don't show that much of a difference between the different types of diets, in the long run, maybe favoring low-carb somewhat, but they are never really that extreme, with too high of percentages of whatever the diet is supposed to be low in, fat or carbs, and who knows if people are sticking to them.

Taubes explanation of why people eat too much because they are fat, not get fat because they eat too much, was very compelling, I thought. Don't make me explain it tho.

(I'm at the beginning of a low-carb diet that's going well, so I'm on that side today.)

[Shepard]

http://www.jlr.org/c...b93300d00b5052a

[Dmitri]

>>> What Americans avoid fat?

Shepard, we've been told since 1976, via the Surgeon General, that we should adopt a low-fat diet in order to [1] reduce the risk of heart disease, and [2] avoid obesity.

Both of these results from a low-fat diet are wrong, and in fact, a higher-fat diet both reduces the chance for heart disease and obesity. The low-fat diet strategy is still the stubborn dogma of most nutritionists and doctors. And, when people reduce fat from their diet, they generally increase carbs -- the exact thing that leads to heart disease and obesity.

Carbs are not bad in moderation, and especially high water volume carbs (carbs that are 90%+ water by weight, like leafy vegetables), but the problem is that most people consume too many lower water volume carbs, like potatoes (especially cooked/fried), rice, grains/breads, pastas, and sugar-laden foods and drinks (especially sodas, fake juices, energy drinks, Starbucks, etc.). Fact: When insulin levels are elevated, fat is being stored, and not being used as metabolic fuel. You simply cannot lose bodyfat by consuming too many carbs (especially processed carbs, starchy carbs, grain-based carbs, and sugar-packed carbs). And the double-edged sword here is that carbs generally are non-satiating.

All of this said, I certainly do not advocate eating unnatural or heat-processed fats/oils, or too many saturated fats. (Except for fats within cooked foods, which not much can be done about. I'm more referring to pasteurized oils versus cold-pressed oils.)

Bottom-line: It is the over consumption of processed carbs that has been the primary cause of America's growing obesity problem in the last 35 years. And the food pyramid's recommendation of grains as the most important group, and fats as the least important, is further proof that our government is part of the problem, not the solution.
http://www.cnn.com/F...ood.pyramid.jpg

According to my health text book starches (don't confuse with starchy or heavy carbs which are different) are the carbs we should be consuming which can be found in vegetables, fruits and grains. The text claims that starches are important because they contain vitamins, minerals, plant protein and water. So, I don't see how the pyramid is lying when it's recommending the same carbs you mentioned.

Also, I wanted to add something since it appears that coconut oil is popular here. My health text books says that it's not good for you since it contains 92% saturated fat which can become trans fatty acids, so why do I see so many people talking about it on many of the threads here? Has there been a recent study that shows it's healthy?

[woly]

According to my health text book starches (don't confuse with starchy or heavy carbs which are different) are the carbs we should be consuming which can be found in vegetables, fruits and grains. The text claims that starches are important because they contain vitamins, minerals, plant protein and water. So, I don't see how the pyramid is lying when it's recommending the same carbs you mentioned.

Also, I wanted to add something since it appears that coconut oil is popular here. My health text books says that it's not good for you since it contains 92% saturated fat which can become trans fatty acids, so why do I see so many people talking about it on many of the threads here? Has there been a recent study that shows it's healthy?

how would starch be different to starchy carbs?
re the coconut oil. it is the beleif of some imminst members that not all types of sat fats are bad for you. a quick google may give you some of the studies on coconut oil. also ive read its more ketonogenic which helps the many imminst members that are trying to reach/stay in ketosis.

duke, re the "calorie is a calorie" link i posted. i think we are saying the same thing. that articles contention is that calories are not always indentical in their effect on the body because it is an open system.

Edited by woly, 25 August 2008 - 12:48 PM.

[woly]

Also shepard, you seem very informed about this but you do not seem agree with the low carb strategy. What is your opinion on this subject?

[Shepard]

Also shepard, you seem very informed about this but you do not seem agree with the low carb strategy. What is your opinion on this subject?

I think low-carb is a great diet. For the general population, I'd recommend it broadly. I'd even go so far as to say that smart low-carbing might be the best thing if you're not going to follow a CR approach.

But, I don't think carbs cause obesity.

[Dmitri]

According to my health text book starches (don't confuse with starchy or heavy carbs which are different) are the carbs we should be consuming which can be found in vegetables, fruits and grains. The text claims that starches are important because they contain vitamins, minerals, plant protein and water. So, I don't see how the pyramid is lying when it's recommending the same carbs you mentioned.

Also, I wanted to add something since it appears that coconut oil is popular here. My health text books says that it's not good for you since it contains 92% saturated fat which can become trans fatty acids, so why do I see so many people talking about it on many of the threads here? Has there been a recent study that shows it's healthy?

how would starch be different to starchy carbs?
re the coconut oil. it is the beleif of some imminst members that not all types of sat fats are bad for you. a quick google may give you some of the studies on coconut oil. also ive read its more ketonogenic which helps the many imminst members that are trying to reach/stay in ketosis.

duke, re the "calorie is a calorie" link i posted. i think we are saying the same thing. that articles contention is that calories are not always indentical in their effect on the body because it is an open system.

This is what the text says:

Starches are complex carbohydrates composed of long chains of sugar units. However, these starches should not be confused with the adjective "starchy". When people talk about starchy foods, they usually mean complex carbohydrates, or "heavy foods". True Starches are among the most important sources of dietary carbohydrates. Starches are found primarily in vegetables, fruits, and grains. Eating true starches is overall nutritionally beneficial because most starch sources also contain much needed vitamins, minerals, plant protein and water.

The text also says that saturated fats promote cholesterol formation, so many companies have removed tropical oils such as coconut oil from their products.

[kenj]

If I lived in the US, I'd be fat. ;-)
Seriously, the US fast food style is infectious; here in northern europe we get the pizza slices, bacon club sandwiches, croissants with chocolate, ham, butter, cheese, whatever, ice cream, fried insulin, triple cokes XXXL (oh, we don't have that yet), -- a few times I've indulged in these 'carbs' - and wow they are a treat for like seconds, - followed by slight abdominal discomfort, insulin trippin', and rocket-launching blood sugar, so I can see why people are getting fatter: convenience coupled with instant filling gratification served in more calories, less nutrition, more fat, and more carbs. A winning cocktail for crashing your body indeed.
FWIW, I've dropped pounds on a hypocaloric diet with lotta 'clean' carbs. As it's been hammered: the right kind of carbs (veggies, fruits, berries, salads, grains in smaller quantity etc.), as well as protein and fats from lean meats, beans, fish, and so on.

[Shepard]

I've dropped weight on Snicker's bars, Fruity Pebbles, and whey. What does that say about the hypothesis?

Eades says it's because my insulin dropped enough between meals to let me lose fat. Insulin is low when hypocaloric? No kidding.

[DukeNukem]

>>> But, I don't think carbs cause obesity.

The key is that too many processed carbs (or sugar-laden carbs, like sodas), lead to fat gain, even if the animal or person is not over-eating. This is what the studies prove to be true.

Here in Texas, where the Hispanic popular is roughly 50% of the total, it's rare to see a normal weight member of that "community." And yet, most of the males, especially, are hard working, involved in high labor jobs that you'd logically think would keep them from gaining weight. But, Hispanics eat a LOT of processed carbs, especially made from corn meal. I do not think that most of these Hispanic men are face-stuffing gluttons. There's clearly something else at work here. And it's the fact that they eat high-processed-carb meals, leading to fat gain. And as I've said, the body is much more efficient at storing fat than burning it. And, when these processed carbs are consumed, fat oxidation is shut down (when blood sugar is above normal).

It all makes so much sense.

I don't think that starting in the 70's two-thirds of America became gluttons. The problem is that processed carbs break our evolutionary programming, overwhelm it (shooting blood sugar too high for too long during the day, resulting in too much insulin production), and too many of these processed carb calories are stored as fat, leaving us feeling hungry again too soon (so, yes, a side effect of processed carbs is that many people will eat more, to make up for the stored calories -- but the key is that this is a side-effect, not people purposely becoming gluttonous).

[Shepard]

The key is that too many processed carbs (or sugar-laden carbs, like sodas), lead to fat gain, even if the animal or person is not over-eating. This is what the studies prove to be true.

Has there ever been a metabolic ward study showing that low-carb diets are superior for weight loss?

Low-carb diets are great for the appearance of weight loss. Water and glycogen come off quick. It's harder to overeat. But, they've never been shown to be advantageous when energy is accounted.

Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Feb;63(2):174-8.

Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets.
Golay A, Allaz AF, Morel Y, de Tonnac N, Tankova S, Reaven G.

Department of Medicine, Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland.

The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of diets that were equally low in energy but widely different in relative amounts of fat and carbohydrate on body weight during a 6-wk period of hospitalization. Consequently, 43 adult, obese persons were randomly assigned to receive diets containing 4.2 MJ/d (1000 kcal/d) composed of either 32% protein, 15% carbohydrate, and 53% fat, or 29% protein, 45% carbohydrate, and 26% fat. There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to diets containing either 15% (8.9 +/- 0.6 kg) or 45% (7.5 +/- 0.5 kg) carbohydrate. Furthermore, significant decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip circumference were seen in both groups, and the magnitude of the changes did not vary as a function of diet composition. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, cholesterol, and triacylglycerol concentrations decreased significantly in patients eating low-energy diets that contained 15% carbohydrate, but neither plasma insulin nor triacylglycerol concentrations fell significantly in response to the higher-carbohydrate diet. The results of this study showed that it was energy intake, not nutrient composition, that determined weight loss in response to low-energy diets over a short time period.

One diet showed significantly lower insulin levels, but weight loss was the same in both groups.

[DukeNukem]

The key is that too many processed carbs (or sugar-laden carbs, like sodas), lead to fat gain, even if the animal or person is not over-eating. This is what the studies prove to be true.

Has there ever been a metabolic ward study showing that low-carb diets are superior for weight loss?

Low-carb diets are great for the appearance of weight loss. Water and glycogen come off quick. It's harder to overeat. But, they've never been shown to be advantageous when energy is accounted.

Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Feb;63(2):174-8.

Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets.
Golay A, Allaz AF, Morel Y, de Tonnac N, Tankova S, Reaven G.

Department of Medicine, Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland.

The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of diets that were equally low in energy but widely different in relative amounts of fat and carbohydrate on body weight during a 6-wk period of hospitalization. Consequently, 43 adult, obese persons were randomly assigned to receive diets containing 4.2 MJ/d (1000 kcal/d) composed of either 32% protein, 15% carbohydrate, and 53% fat, or 29% protein, 45% carbohydrate, and 26% fat. There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to diets containing either 15% (8.9 +/- 0.6 kg) or 45% (7.5 +/- 0.5 kg) carbohydrate. Furthermore, significant decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip circumference were seen in both groups, and the magnitude of the changes did not vary as a function of diet composition. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, cholesterol, and triacylglycerol concentrations decreased significantly in patients eating low-energy diets that contained 15% carbohydrate, but neither plasma insulin nor triacylglycerol concentrations fell significantly in response to the higher-carbohydrate diet. The results of this study showed that it was energy intake, not nutrient composition, that determined weight loss in response to low-energy diets over a short time period.

One diet showed significantly lower insulin levels, but weight loss was the same in both groups.

For the above study to be useful, we need to know what types of carbs where being used. Also, IMO, people who are getting fat in America (or in China and other countries where the American diet is becoming popular) are consuming a higher ration of carbs than 45% -- my guess is in the 60%+ range (especially those who drink 2+ sodas a day, which is a large percentage of people). The so called "high carb" diet in this study is not all that far from being a Zone diet.

Also, if I am reading this right, these people were getting 1000 cals/day, which makes this study entirely different to what this thread is about. This is a severe CR diet, and therefore the results will not relate to a low-processed-carb diet at a normal calorie load.

[Shepard]

I agree that the study isn't ideal, but what it does show is that insulin levels are not what drive fat gain/loss.

"Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, cholesterol, and triacylglycerol concentrations decreased significantly in patients eating low-energy diets that contained 15% carbohydrate, but neither plasma insulin nor triacylglycerol concentrations fell significantly in response to the higher-carbohydrate diet."

It's unlikely that we'll get a perfect study since most funding is done with profit in mind. Not a lot of profit in just seeing what happens in healthy people. There are plenty of other free-living studies that show the same result, but you have human error that comes into play.

So, what if the "okay" carbs are eaten in isolation and the "bad" carbs are eaten with a meal?

To further thoughts on the above study: Since the patients were obese, they probably had a good bit of visceral fat. Visceral fat is essentially in a constant state of lipolysis, which is part of the reason it is so dangerous. Insulin doesn't inhibit oxidation, so once BG levels fell from the diet, the FFAs were oxidized. Translating that to a non-obese person, any energy deficit should cause BG and insulin to fall. Lipolysis will increase and FFAs will be oxidized as needed to meet energy demands. If you eat at maintenance from a ketogenic diet, you merely oxidize all the dietary fat that you eat, and not necessarily stored fat (exceptions being VAT).

Edited by shepard, 25 August 2008 - 07:45 PM.

[Mind]

I've dropped weight on Snicker's bars, Fruity Pebbles, and whey. What does that say about the hypothesis?

I could lose weight eating nothing but doughnuts...as long as I eat only 1 per day and nothing else. Pretty simple really.

It obviously depends on exercise and total caloric intake as to whether or not a person will gain weight. Control for calories and the higher protein diet is head and shoulders above high carb diets as far as overall human health goes. The weight gain of Americans is multifaceted but one key is the crappy high sugar high/carb diet.

[Shepard]

It obviously depends on total caloric intake as to whether or not a person will gain weight.

This is all that I'm arguing. I'm not talking about low-carb diets and health.

[DukeNukem]

It obviously depends on total caloric intake as to whether or not a person will gain weight.

This is all that I'm arguing. I'm not talking about low-carb diets and health.

No one is arguing that weight loss cannot be achieved on a CR diet.

My argument for this thread is that people can become fat simply by eating the wrong carbs, versus eating too much.

[Shepard]

From this, I got the idea that you were arguing for luxoconsumption.

The singular reason most Americans are fat is NOT because we consume too many calories. It's because we consume the wrong kinds of calories, namely breads, rice, pasta, potatoes, processed snacks, and sugar-laden drinks (including processed fruit drinks). And, at the same time, we avoid fats. It is carbs that makes us fat to a MUCH greater extent than too much fat in our diets, because carbs are quickly stored as fat, plus they block the breakdown of existing fat -- it's a double-whammy knock-out versus a slender, healthy body.

Is that not your basis?

[DukeNukem]

From this, I got the idea that you were arguing for luxoconsumption.

The singular reason most Americans are fat is NOT because we consume too many calories. It's because we consume the wrong kinds of calories, namely breads, rice, pasta, potatoes, processed snacks, and sugar-laden drinks (including processed fruit drinks). And, at the same time, we avoid fats. It is carbs that makes us fat to a MUCH greater extent than too much fat in our diets, because carbs are quickly stored as fat, plus they block the breakdown of existing fat -- it's a double-whammy knock-out versus a slender, healthy body.

Is that not your basis?

The above is still my belief. We can blame rampant obesity on processed carbs becoming more and more prevalent. And not on the idea that suddenly everyone started eating too much. (Although, the consumption of processed carbs does lead to overeating -- but again the root evil here is the processed carbs.) And, the US government is much to blame for this, because they told us in official nutritional reports starting in 1976 to adopt a low-fat diet (which results in a higher carb diet), a persistent dogmatic belief even today among nutritionists and doctors.

[Shepard]

We can blame rampant obesity on processed carbs becoming more and more prevalent.

So, by what mechanism do processed carbs lead to obesity?

In the above study, insulin levels did not drop below pre-diet levels. Yet, adipose tissue was still lost. The carbs that they ate on the diet came from milk, vegetables, fruit, bread, pasta, rice, cereals, and artificially sweetened yogurt. If it was the processed carbs keeping them fat, then you could argue that swapping over to this diet may have led to the weight loss. But, you can't say it's because of insulin.

[zoolander]

There seems to be a positive correlation between the increase in obesity prevalence and an increase in the CHO content of the diet.

During 1971-2000, the prevalence of obesity in the United States increased from 14.5% to 30.9% (1). During the same period the CHO content of the diet also increased dramatically (2)



Note that the fat content in the diet has decreased over the last 30 years. This is more than likely the result of an anti-fat movement. Unfortunately this was at the expense of the 'good' fats that seemed to have been replaced by more CHO most likely in the form of simple CHO. It's fairly well established that a diet, either in liquid or solid form, that is low-fat and high in CHO will stimulate fatty acid synthesis from CHO and plasma triglycerides increase in proportion to the amount of fatty acid synthesis in both lean and obese subjects (3). I wouldn't be surprised then if the increase in simple CHO in the diet is also contributing to the rise in CVD in society.

2. Wright JD, Kennedy-Stephenson J, Wang CY, McDowell MA, Johnson CL (Feb 2004). "Trends in intake of energy and macronutrients—United States, 1971-2000". MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 53 (4): 80–2.

[krillin]

The above is still my belief. We can blame rampant obesity on processed carbs becoming more and more prevalent. And not on the idea that suddenly everyone started eating too much. (Although, the consumption of processed carbs does lead to overeating -- but again the root evil here is the processed carbs.) And, the US government is much to blame for this, because they told us in official nutritional reports starting in 1976 to adopt a low-fat diet (which results in a higher carb diet), a persistent dogmatic belief even today among nutritionists and doctors.

The fact is that people have been eating more on average, most of the increase being fats and bad carbs. Having spent time in the midwest and south, I can assure you that the heartland is overrun with lazy gluttons. In the south, they even buy their young children little motorized vehicles instead of Big Wheels so they won't get sweaty.

http://www.ers.usda....Consumption.htm

Even with the mid-1990s push to cut dietary fat, added fats and oils accounted for an extra 216 calories per person per day—or 42 percent of the 523-calorie increase between 1970 and 2003. Grains and sugars contributed 188 and 76 added calories. Only in dairy products did daily calories decline (11 calories), partly due to the switch from whole to low-fat milk.

Low-carb zealots should spend some time around endurance athletes to see the bone definition you can get on a moderate fat (25-30%) diet.

[Prometheus]

We can blame rampant obesity on processed carbs becoming more and more prevalent.

So, by what mechanism do processed carbs lead to obesity?

In the above study, insulin levels did not drop below pre-diet levels. Yet, adipose tissue was still lost. The carbs that they ate on the diet came from milk, vegetables, fruit, bread, pasta, rice, cereals, and artificially sweetened yogurt. If it was the processed carbs keeping them fat, then you could argue that swapping over to this diet may have led to the weight loss. But, you can't say it's because of insulin.

Glucose acts as a nutrient surrogate signal in the bloodstream that interfaces to numerous physiological sensors that influence metabolism (this is because our digestive and metabolic processes have evolved to respond solely to the consumption of complex carbohydrates that take time to elevate glucose levels). Consumption of even a small amount of glucose lead the sensors in the brain and liver to consider the body to be in a 'fed' state and direct the balance of metabolism towards lipogenesis in adipose tissue. That means the body goes into fat storage mode irrespective of the number of calories consumed. This is why counting calories is meaningless in a high carb/simple carb diet.

[Shepard]

I wouldn't be surprised then if the increase in simple CHO in the diet is also contributing to the rise in CVD in society.

This paper might be worth checking out:

Prev Med. 2006 May;42(5):336-42. Epub 2006 Mar 15.

The atherogenic potential of dietary carbohydrate.

Kopp W.

Univ. Doz. Dr. Wolfgang Kopp, Diagnostikzentrum Graz, Mariatrosterstrasse 41, A-8043 Graz, Austria.

OBJECTIVE.: To investigate the role of dietary carbohydrate in atherogenesis. METHOD.: Search of the literature for relevant papers concerning the relationship of insulin/hyperinsulinemia and carbohydrate on the one hand, and the renin-angiotensin system, the sympathetic nervous system, growth factors, i.e. platelet-derived growth factor and insulin-like growth factor-I, C-reactive protein, and dyslipemia, on the other hand, factors well known to be involved in the atherogenic process, as well as for epidemiologic studies investigating the relationship between high-carbohydrate diets and the development of cardiovascular disease. RESULTS.: High-carbohydrate nutrition is shown to have the ability to induce vascular inflammation and plaque formation through an insulin-mediated activation of the RAS, growth factors, cytokines, the SNS, and C-reactive protein and to cause an atherogenic lipid profile in normal humans. Epidemiologic studies as well as studies in experimental animals corroborate an important role of dietary carbohydrate in atherogenesis. CONCLUSION.: High-carbohydrate diets, particularly in the form of high-glycemic index carbohydrate, have the ability to directly induce atherosclerosis. Based on anthropologic facts, the reason for these dietary-induced, insulin-mediated, atherogenic metabolic perturbations are suggested to be an insufficient adaptation to starch and sugars during human evolution. Restriction of insulinogenic food (starch and sugars) may help to prevent the development of atherosclerosis, one of the most common and costliest human diseases.

PMID: 16540158

I've been meaning to read it for a while, but haven't got around to it yet.

[Dmitri]

>>> But, I don't think carbs cause obesity.

The key is that too many processed carbs (or sugar-laden carbs, like sodas), lead to fat gain, even if the animal or person is not over-eating. This is what the studies prove to be true.

Here in Texas, where the Hispanic popular is roughly 50% of the total, it's rare to see a normal weight member of that "community." And yet, most of the males, especially, are hard working, involved in high labor jobs that you'd logically think would keep them from gaining weight. But, Hispanics eat a LOT of processed carbs, especially made from corn meal. I do not think that most of these Hispanic men are face-stuffing gluttons. There's clearly something else at work here. And it's the fact that they eat high-processed-carb meals, leading to fat gain. And as I've said, the body is much more efficient at storing fat than burning it. And, when these processed carbs are consumed, fat oxidation is shut down (when blood sugar is above normal).

It all makes so much sense.

I don't think that starting in the 70's two-thirds of America became gluttons. The problem is that processed carbs break our evolutionary programming, overwhelm it (shooting blood sugar too high for too long during the day, resulting in too much insulin production), and too many of these processed carb calories are stored as fat, leaving us feeling hungry again too soon (so, yes, a side effect of processed carbs is that many people will eat more, to make up for the stored calories -- but the key is that this is a side-effect, not people purposely becoming gluttonous).

I don't know why you're complaining, the government and nutritionists recommend the good carbs not the bad ones (they don't recommend processed foods and processed carbs). Carbs are also important because it's an essential nutrient for the brain, which is what I learned in physiological psychology. The pyramid also recommends fats which come from fish oils, nuts and vegetable oils.

As for your experience is it not anecdotal? I’m surprised that a site that honors science so much would have a member who bases his views on anecdotal information. I live in Houston and I rarely see young fat “Hispanics”, but I’m not going to make a claim since I have not seen all “Hispanics” in Texas.

I used quotations above because you cannot always tell who is Hispanic since they can be of any race.

Anyway, aren't low carb diets bad? I remember hearing in the news that people who were on Atkins diet (which is low carb diet) eventually developed heart disease because of the fat in their diet.

[Shepard]

Glucose acts as a nutrient surrogate signal in the bloodstream that interfaces to numerous physiological sensors that influence metabolism (this is because our digestive and metabolic processes have evolved to respond solely to the consumption of complex carbohydrates that take time to elevate glucose levels). Consumption of even a small amount of glucose lead the sensors in the brain and liver to consider the body to be in a 'fed' state and direct the balance of metabolism towards lipogenesis in adipose tissue. That means the body goes into fat storage mode irrespective of the number of calories consumed. This is why counting calories is meaningless in a high carb/simple carb diet.

This is the type of logic that has been used over and over and over to argue for low-carb diets. Why doesn't it pan out in the literature?

[Shepard]

Carbs are also important because it's an essential nutrient for the brain, which is what I learned in physiological psychology.

Most of the tissues in the body are able to swap over to ketones (for a little while) in the absence of glucose. The body is able to make glucose from protein for the ones that don't.

[Prometheus]

Glucose acts as a nutrient surrogate signal in the bloodstream that interfaces to numerous physiological sensors that influence metabolism (this is because our digestive and metabolic processes have evolved to respond solely to the consumption of complex carbohydrates that take time to elevate glucose levels). Consumption of even a small amount of glucose lead the sensors in the brain and liver to consider the body to be in a 'fed' state and direct the balance of metabolism towards lipogenesis in adipose tissue. That means the body goes into fat storage mode irrespective of the number of calories consumed. This is why counting calories is meaningless in a high carb/simple carb diet.

This is the type of logic that has been used over and over and over to argue for low-carb diets. Why doesn't it pan out in the literature?

If you doubt it, show me where the literature disproves the above.

[Shepard]

If you doubt it, show me where the literature disproves the above.

Couple of freeliving studies again showing no big difference:
http://www.pubmedcen...bmedid=16403234
http://jcem.endojour.../full/89/6/2717

Yes, glucose helps with fed-state signaling. But, it doesn't mean counting Calories is worthless just because you're eating high carb.