335 replies to this topic

[nowayout]

one of the things that gives away pretty much what diet humans have evolved/adapted to is when you examine hypothalamic appetite regulation (the brain's appetite control centers receive information from afferents and hormones in response to food from the mouth to the small intestine). protein and fat (chains >12) have a high satiety index with protein having the longest satiety effect. on the other hand, fructose does the opposite in the brain because it causes an ATP drop (during conversion to glucose) which is perceived as a shortage of food. unsuprisingly fruit has a low satiety index. also, unlike glucose which can be directly absorbed in muscle, fructose has to be converted in the liver to glucose before it can be used. in addition to the metabolism destabilizing effects of glucose, it has also been shown to be addictive.

from an appetite regulation perspective, the paleo/duke diet is most in line with how the brain has evolved to sense nutrients

I disagree. A fructose low-satiety response makes perfect sense if you consider that, when an early human came upon a tree bearing ripe fruit, he could either gorge himself or lose out to the monkeys, birds, and rot. In this context, gorging was a good thing.

[DukeNukem]

[...] My key points: No grains (although non-gluten grains are okay for occasional cheating), no processed fructose, and no high PUFA (>10%) oils (other than fish oil). Note that these are in common with all the longevity diets mentioned above, with the exception that some of the mentioned groups eat a lot of non-gluten starchy carbs. Frankly, I don't think these carbs are beneficial, they're more likely just harmless filler calories. Active people can likely handle these better than most civilized people, so that's why I think we should greatly reduce them.

I see you don't mention fructose from fruits; however, I know from your earlier posts that you have advocated moderate fruit consumption due to fructose. Is this lack of mention only because you and Cordain agree on that point, or has your opinion on the matter changed? If so, what has caused the change?

I think fruits are okay as a treat, even one per day. It's just that berries give you a lot more nutrition per sugar calorie, so I lean on berries a lot more than the bigger fruits. PLUS, I don't waste time with fruits that you need to remove the skin (bananas and oranges, for example), because nature tends to place most phytonutrients in the skin as a defence against bacteria, fungus, direct sunlight, and so on. Berries win again, because we can always eat the skin. Pomegranate is a rare exception--the innards of this fruit are jam-packed with beneficial nutrients. So, I agree with Cordain, but with a few refinements.

[DukeNukem]

The hunter/gatherers spent as much as 90% of their waking moments involved in hunting, foraging, processing, eating, defending or stealing their foraging/kills. They were running, walking, climbing, crawling, carrying, digging, pulling, fighting, stalking, trapping, etc almost from the moment they awoke from a relatively short sleep cycle till lights out brought them back to the fire for a nights activity of a shared meal, a good dance, and maybe a shared... well it couldn't exactly be called a bed though it is paleo-linguistically why we still say we *make* our bed each day.

Do you have any data to back this up? I'm asking because I read an article a while ago which attempted to show that hunter-gatherers were not as active as we thought they were, and that they spent a considerable part of their day doing nothing.

I've read this many places too. And, it makes sense. Men would go on a 4-8 hour hunt, mostly walking, until the time of the attack, involving a short-term but quick burst of energy. Much like a cheetah. Then, cutting up the kill and hauling it back to the tribe. Everyone would then feast and rest for at least a day or two, maybe doing odd jobs but nothing too strenuous. The idea is to converse energy, not find ways to burn it up and force the next hunt to need to happen sooner versus later. It's not like these paleo people were constantly on the move, or involved in local wars, or running around scouting for who-knows-what. Energy conservation would have been near the top of their list, and that means inactivity, sitting around spinning tales and talking about the weather. Pretty much like men gathering at bars nowadays. It's just ludicrous to think hunter-gatherers where always on the move, wasting valuable energy.

[DukeNukem]

We have some modern support for this argument and perhaps the idea that excess carbs might be even worse for recent transitory genetic groups versus groups that have been sedentary for a lot longer, in the impact of modern diets on Amerind, African, and Mongol peoples. They can suffer extreme obesity, diabetes and other diet related illnesses more than other groups. There are a variety of complicated aspects that make that inference highly debatable and complicated because it is as much a socioeconomic analysis as nutrigenetic.

In these groups I doubt that it is the carbs per se. I recently watched a PBS show containing a very telling scene showing a native American tribe divided by the U.S.-Mexican border. Most of those shown on the U.S. side were grossly obese, and were shown feasting on hamburgers, hot dogs, cheese, butter, white bread, beer, sugary soft drinks, and so on. The animal protein and fat content of their diet appeared to be much higher than that of their cousins across the border, who were thin, and whose diet appeared to consist of traditional agrarian foods based on beans, maize, and tubers, all high in (unrefined) carbohydrates.

Obviously here the carbs are not to blame, since the thin cousins eat lots of carbs. These people are obese because they are malnourished and uneducated. I furthermore doubt that genetics has much to do with it - I see morbidly obese people from every ethnic background, most of whom are in fact of European descent, every day here, and they usually have in common the fact that they are poor and/or uneducated. I think blaming native Americans' genetics is politically a very convenient excuse to obscure the real reason for their terrible health problems, which is their terrible socioeconomic conditions in the U.S. These people are at the same time obese and malnourished on a typical U.S. poverty level diet, where a cheeseburger can be cheaper than an apple.

I don't doubt that different groups may have different physical responses to refined sugar or alcohol, but I definitely doubt that that is the main reason for these people's health problems, and the issue of refined sugar is in any case separate from the issue of carbs in general, which is being discussed in this thread.

I'm pretty sure you're talking about the Pima, a well studied tribe that at one time was thin and healthy, but then along came the white man's high-grain diet and fattened them up within a decade or two. Carbs are pinpointed as the exact reason for this tribe's obesity problem.

BTW, if you saw this PBS special, then the slant of that show was based on the "thrifty gene" hypothesis, a hypothesis now disputed even by the original author of it. There is no thrifty gene mechanism--this is a myth that will likely persist in the nutritional community for a few more decades, just like the myth of the cholesterol hypothesis.

Edited by DukeNukem, 24 January 2009 - 10:28 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

just like the myth of the cholesterol hypothesis

please elaborate

[Prometheus]

There is no thrifty gene mechanism--this is a myth that will likely persist in the nutritional community for a few more decades, just like the myth of the cholesterol hypothesis.

of course there is.. how do you account for the varied responses to carbohydrate based diets? particularly in societies which have recently been exposed to westernized diet..

[Prometheus]

one of the things that gives away pretty much what diet humans have evolved/adapted to is when you examine hypothalamic appetite regulation (the brain's appetite control centers receive information from afferents and hormones in response to food from the mouth to the small intestine). protein and fat (chains >12) have a high satiety index with protein having the longest satiety effect. on the other hand, fructose does the opposite in the brain because it causes an ATP drop (during conversion to glucose) which is perceived as a shortage of food. unsuprisingly fruit has a low satiety index. also, unlike glucose which can be directly absorbed in muscle, fructose has to be converted in the liver to glucose before it can be used. in addition to the metabolism destabilizing effects of glucose, it has also been shown to be addictive.

from an appetite regulation perspective, the paleo/duke diet is most in line with how the brain has evolved to sense nutrients

I disagree. A fructose low-satiety response makes perfect sense if you consider that, when an early human came upon a tree bearing ripe fruit, he could either gorge himself or lose out to the monkeys, birds, and rot. In this context, gorging was a good thing.

you dont need to disagree because I agree - occasional gorging sounds right.. (but its only healthy in a paleo context - high activity, infrequent carb intake of complex carbs)

[Prometheus]

just like the myth of the cholesterol hypothesis

please elaborate

is this the one where eating cholesterol (fat) makes more cholesterol and gives you heart disease, etc?

yep.. that is one big BS but you need to look at lipid transport to understand why this is so..

[sthira]

I've read this many places too. And, it makes sense. Men would go on a 4-8 hour hunt, mostly walking, until the time of the attack, involving a short-term but quick burst of energy. Much like a cheetah. Then, cutting up the kill and hauling it back to the tribe. Everyone would then feast and rest for at least a day or two, maybe doing odd jobs but nothing too strenuous. The idea is to converse energy, not find ways to burn it up and force the next hunt to need to happen sooner versus later. It's not like these paleo people were constantly on the move, or involved in local wars, or running around scouting for who-knows-what. Energy conservation would have been near the top of their list, and that means inactivity, sitting around spinning tales and talking about the weather. Pretty much like men gathering at bars nowadays. It's just ludicrous to think hunter-gatherers where always on the move, wasting valuable energy.

Our food gathering past probably did not frequently involve short, quick bursts of energy "much like a cheetah" or else we would probably look like cheetahs. Since we don't, our food gathering pasts probably mean something else. Like, picking fruit and grubbing for insects with hands that are nicely shaped for such.

Even so: "The notion that there was a time of perfect adaptation, from which we've now deviated, is a caricature of the way evolution works. First, when exactly was this age of harmony, and what was it like? Scavenging, or eating the carcasses of dead animals left by (or stolen from) predators like lions, was probably replaced by active hunting and accumulation of wild plants about 55,000 years ago, and agriculture seems to have begun a mere 10,000 years ago. We did a lot of different things during each of these times.

How much of the diet during our idyllic hunter-gatherer past was meat, and what kind of plants and animals were used, varied widely in time and space. Inuits had different diets from Australian aboriginals or Neotropical forest dwellers. And we know little about the details of early family structure and other aspects of behavior. So the argument that we are "meant" to eat a certain proportion of meat, say, is highly questionable. Which of our human ancestors are we using as models?"



http://www.nytimes.c...ews/20essa.html

[DukeNukem]

Our food gathering past probably did not frequently involve short, quick bursts of energy "much like a cheetah" or else we would probably look like cheetahs.

We developed brains most likely because of our group method of hunting, which requires coordinated, planned attacks, and using weapons like rocks and spears. And this required communication, and likely lead to the development of a language. Hunters undoubtedly spotted a viable victim, probably a weaker animal among the herd, and strategically surrounded it, with one of two men who would then flush out and drive the animal into the others who were hiding. Not too much unlike this current day chimp attack.

Note that chimps do not look like cheetahs.

[DukeNukem]

There is no thrifty gene mechanism--this is a myth that will likely persist in the nutritional community for a few more decades, just like the myth of the cholesterol hypothesis.

of course there is.. how do you account for the varied responses to carbohydrate based diets? particularly in societies which have recently been exposed to westernized diet..

As I said, the geneticist who created this hypothesis rejects it himself now:
http://en.wikipedia....gene_hypothesis

This is covered really well in Good Calorie, Bad Calorie.

Also:
http://www.arthurdev...WhyWeGetFat.pdf

[sthira]

We developed brains most likely because of our group method of hunting, which requires coordinated, planned attacks, and using weapons like rocks and spears. And this required communication, and likely lead to the development of a language. Hunters undoubtedly spotted a viable victim, probably a weaker animal among the herd, and strategically surrounded it, with one of two men who would then flush out and drive the animal into the others who were hiding. Not too much unlike this current day chimp attack.

Note that chimps do not look like cheetahs.

Sure, group hunting may have been one of the things that led to the development of language. And language is also useful for all sorts of stuff beyond hunting: how do you get poison out of the gland of a toad, what's the best way to weave a basket, where are the berries, how do i get the termites out of that hole... Language is also good for one-on-one negotiations: "If you give me some of your meat, I'll give you some of my fruit"; "You and I can gang up on the leader: -- even though he's stronger than either of us, he can't beat the two of us acting together"; "If you have sex with me, I'll help bring up the children." There are all kinds of ways that language can be useful. Group hunting, I think, is one of them.

Even so, I think it's mostly irrelevant. "...the difficulty with using our hunter-gatherer selves as icons of well-being goes much deeper. It is not as if we finally achieved harmony with our environment during the Pleistocene, heaved a sigh of relief and stopped. Instead, evolution lurches along..."

[Prometheus]

There is no thrifty gene mechanism--this is a myth that will likely persist in the nutritional community for a few more decades, just like the myth of the cholesterol hypothesis.

of course there is.. how do you account for the varied responses to carbohydrate based diets? particularly in societies which have recently been exposed to westernized diet..

As I said, the geneticist who created this hypothesis rejects it himself now:
http://en.wikipedia....gene_hypothesis

This is covered really well in Good Calorie, Bad Calorie.

Also:
http://www.arthurdev...WhyWeGetFat.pdf

lol.. the reason the theory has lost traction is because it fails to explain why not everyone gets fat with modern diet.. but we know that obesity is strongly correlated with genetics and so is response to food.. do you agree with this?

[DukeNukem]

...but we know that obesity is strongly correlated with genetics and so is response to food.. do you agree with this?

Well, given that we all have similar genetics, I do believe that we all react generally the same to foods. Not sure if that's what you're asking.

But, to be more clear, I do not blame genetics for the obesity crisis in America. Instead, I blame food choices for 98% of it. In other words, 98% of the people who are overweight could have remained at a normal weight (or can return to a normal, healthy weight) with dietary changes. The explosion in waistlines in America is not because of a sudden explosion in genetically predisposed fat people. It's the explosive proliferation of grains (especially wheat, corn and soy, and all of their highly processed derivatives), fructose (via sodas, fruity drinks and packaged foods), vegetable oils, and potatoes (the national vegetable).

The average American has moved away from quality fats and proteins, and more towards empty, overly processed carb calories. And since carbs induce hunger rather than satiation, it leads to caloric over-consumption, too.

Edited by DukeNukem, 25 January 2009 - 04:32 AM.

[nowayout]

In these groups I doubt that it is the carbs per se. I recently watched a PBS show containing a very telling scene showing a native American tribe divided by the U.S.-Mexican border. Most of those shown on the U.S. side were grossly obese, and were shown feasting on hamburgers, hot dogs, cheese, butter, white bread, beer, sugary soft drinks, and so on. The animal protein and fat content of their diet appeared to be much higher than that of their cousins across the border, who were thin, and whose diet appeared to consist of traditional agrarian foods based on beans, maize, and tubers, all high in (unrefined) carbohydrates.

Obviously here the carbs are not to blame, since the thin cousins eat lots of carbs.

I'm pretty sure you're talking about the Pima, a well studied tribe that at one time was thin and healthy, but then along came the white man's high-grain diet and fattened them up within a decade or two. Carbs are pinpointed as the exact reason for this tribe's obesity problem.

Well, that simply cannot be. As I mentioned, their thin cousins across the border eat lots of carbs and less fatty meat. I am not disputing that refined carbohydrates could have something to do with it, but it should would be silly to throw away the yam because the Coca Cola made you fat.

[Mind]

As I mentioned, their thin cousins across the border eat lots of carbs and less fatty meat.

"Lots" of carbs. Are you saying they gorge themselves on like 4,000-5,000 calories a day and yet miraculously stay thin? Or are you saying they eat a higher percentage of carbs? A person can eat nothing but carbs and still be thin. I could eat nothing but doughnuts (1 a day) and lose weight real quick. The number of calories is important here. I would be willing to bet the Pima north of the border are eating waaaaaaaay more calories everyday than those south of the border.

So the argument that we are "meant" to eat a certain proportion of meat, say, is highly questionable.

To me it is not a question of what is "meant' to eat. Understanding our evolved metabolism is an important starting point for understanding our current health and nutrition. The USA is case one for not exceeding a certain level of carb intake. It is embarrassing how fat Americans are and it is due mostly to carbs and sugar consumption.

Someone alluded to the fact that only men like the paleo diet because it is more macho or whatever. The zone diet, the atkins diet, the south beach diet, are all very similar and many women have had success on these diets and promote them as well.

When I interviewed Gary Taubes last year he claimed that most of the opposition to the Atkins diet (and similar higher fat diets) comes from animal rights sentiments. From what I have seen, this seems to be accurate. People who want to argue against paleo-type diets based on animal rights, please do so. I respect that position. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that argument. I can't wait for the day when we can engineer a perfect diet without the need of animals or even plants.

[nowayout]

As I mentioned, their thin cousins across the border eat lots of carbs and less fatty meat.

"Lots" of carbs. Are you saying they gorge themselves on like 4,000-5,000 calories a day and yet miraculously stay thin? Or are you saying they eat a higher percentage of carbs? A person can eat nothing but carbs and still be thin. I could eat nothing but doughnuts (1 a day) and lose weight real quick. The number of calories is important here. I would be willing to bet the Pima north of the border are eating waaaaaaaay more calories everyday than those south of the border.

I would bet the thin cousins eat a higher percentage of carbs. I am disputing the assertion that the U.S. part of the tribe became fat after being introduced to carbs per se by the white man. Remember, Amerindians were eating, as staples, maize and potatoes long before the white man did without suffering from widespread obesity. As for the obese U.S. Pimas, they are eating much more protein and fat, yet, like many white and black people who are similarly obese on the same kind of diet, they are not getting properly satiated by this high protein and fat content, despite what has been said on this thread about satiety indices of these foods. The thin Pima across the border, on the other hand, are getting properly satiated by a diet containing a high percentage of carbs. I would guess the real reason is that the U.S. Pima diet consists mostly of empty calories, and they simply need to eat more calories to get minimal levels of other essential nutrients from that diet.

Additionally, you mention doughnuts as an example of a high-carb food. This is a terrible example, since most of the calories in a doughnut are actually from fat. In fact, most of the empty calories in a wide variety of superficially carb-based U.S. processed food are actually from added fat (e.g. fries, cookies, chips, crackers, muffins), so it would be more correct to say that Americans, including the U.S. Pima, are mainly getting obese from dietary fat, not from carbs.

Edited by andre, 25 January 2009 - 02:37 PM.

[DukeNukem]

As I mentioned, their thin cousins across the border eat lots of carbs and less fatty meat.

"Lots" of carbs. Are you saying they gorge themselves on like 4,000-5,000 calories a day and yet miraculously stay thin? Or are you saying they eat a higher percentage of carbs? A person can eat nothing but carbs and still be thin. I could eat nothing but doughnuts (1 a day) and lose weight real quick. The number of calories is important here. I would be willing to bet the Pima north of the border are eating waaaaaaaay more calories everyday than those south of the border.

I would bet the thin cousins eat a higher percentage of carbs. I am disputing the assertion that the U.S. part of the tribe became fat after being introduced to carbs per se by the white man. Remember, Amerindians were eating, as staples, maize and potatoes long before the white man did without suffering from widespread obesity. As for the obese U.S. Pimas, they are eating much more protein and fat, yet, like many white and black people who are similarly obese on the same kind of diet, they are not getting properly satiated by this high protein and fat content, despite what has been said on this thread about satiety indices of these foods. The thin Pima across the border, on the other hand, are getting properly satiated by a diet containing a high percentage of carbs. I would guess the real reason is that the U.S. Pima diet consists mostly of empty calories, and they simply need to eat more calories to get minimal levels of other essential nutrients from that diet.

Additionally, you mention doughnuts as an example of a high-carb food. This is a terrible example, since most of the calories in a doughnut are actually from fat. In fact, most of the empty calories in a wide variety of superficially carb-based U.S. processed food are actually from added fat (e.g. fries, cookies, chips, crackers, muffins), so it would be more correct to say that Americans, including the U.S. Pima, are mainly getting obese from dietary fat, not from carbs.

The Pima were a victim of reservation life, and not being able to hunt in the vast areas around their tribal region, containing buffalo, deer and numerous other animals. The government shipped in mostly rice, corn and flour, which then became their primary caloric source. Yes, they ate natural maze previous to this, but not as a primary food. The Pima lifestyle also changed overnight, as they became caged on their reservations, with a loss of purpose.

[Prometheus]

...but we know that obesity is strongly correlated with genetics and so is response to food.. do you agree with this?

Well, given that we all have similar genetics, I do believe that we all react generally the same to foods.

er.. we don't (consider the obvious such as lactose and gluten) and genetics account for obvious things such why we look different on the outside to subtle variations in the catalytic activity of enzymes, structural aspects of proteins that alter ligand-receptor binding interactions, etc. It has been established in human twin studies that genetics accounts for how easily we gain and lose weight. More importantly, despite the etiology of obesity being an excess of calories consumed over calories expended, there are many paths that lead to that excess, which involve individual satiety response and metabolism to different macronutrients. This is not to say that the principles you espouse are not beneficial (and I agree with broadly), however, it accounts for inter-individual differences to diet and it is useful for an individual to be aware of their gene-nutrient interactions when seeking to make further refinements to their diet.

[DukeNukem]

...but we know that obesity is strongly correlated with genetics and so is response to food.. do you agree with this?

Well, given that we all have similar genetics, I do believe that we all react generally the same to foods.

er.. we don't (consider the obvious such as lactose and gluten) and genetics account for obvious things such why we look different on the outside to subtle variations in the catalytic activity of enzymes, structural aspects of proteins that alter ligand-receptor binding interactions, etc. It has been established in human twin studies that genetics accounts for how easily we gain and lose weight. More importantly, despite the etiology of obesity being an excess of calories consumed over calories expended, there are many paths that lead to that excess, which involve individual satiety response and metabolism to different macronutrients. This is not to say that the principles you espouse are not beneficial (and I agree with broadly), however, it accounts for inter-individual differences to diet and it is useful for an individual to be aware of their gene-nutrient interactions when seeking to make further refinements to their diet.

The vast majority (>95%) of people are allergic to gluten to at least some degree. And definitely lectins, also found in grains, which permeate the lining of our digestive system and cause systemic inflammation. Lactose appears to be a case where certain populations have developed a tolerance. But, this is more he exception than the rule, by a screaming long shot.

More importantly, despite the etiology of obesity being an excess of calories consumed over calories expended.

This is a persistent myth that will likely die hard. I suggest you start with Good Calorie, Bad Calorie. Or, a summary here. Until this myth is put into its rightful place (the Trash Can of Historic Wrong Turns), it will continue to lead people down the wrong path in numerous other key areas of diet, too.

Bottom-line, we are all genetically extremely similar. This is why we can all eat the same paleo foods and not experience allergies, and why we can all take the same medications and in the vast majority of cases not suddenly die (as would happen if genetic variation where as critical as so many people believe). All of our organs are in the same spot, and so on. We are far far far more alike than the outward appearances suggest. And that's why there should be a single, universally best longevity diet that works for 99%+ of the world population.

[Shepard]

More importantly, despite the etiology of obesity being an excess of calories consumed over calories expended.

This is a persistent myth that will likely die hard.

And why does this never show up in controlled trials, again?

[Prometheus]

I agree that not all calories are equal, given that energy macronutrients from which those calories are composed of, are detected and treated differently, i.e carbohydrate versus triglyceride, which is why an equicaloric diet high in sugars versus high in fats results in different treatment of excess energy by the body.

However, to say that we are genetically very similar, coming from someone as (lay) knowledgeable as yourself, is striking. I used the examples of gluten and lactose for illustrative purposes. There are numerous genes which have shown a strong relationship to obesity from genome wide association studies. Many have to do with appetite regulation, nutrient sensing and preference to energy macronutrients, some with fat transport and some with carbohydrate metabolism.

Not everyone will gain weight at the same rate if they eat and exercise in the same way and not everyone will become insulin resistant within the same time frame if they follow a diet high in simple carbs. Even if you say, that for the purposes of obesity, we are all genetically similar is inaccurate and does not reflect the present standard of scientific knowledge.

[ajnast4r]

This is a persistent myth that will likely die hard.

you cant really argue in a reasonable way that the universal truth of obesity is a hypercaloric diet. this is established medical fact, its not up for debate.

the influencing factor like macronutrient composition, genetics response to macronutrients, hunger/satiety mechanism etc etc are all very interesting and definitely influential factors... but to say that the hypercaloric origin of obesity is a MYTH is irresponsible and completely out of touch with current scientific understanding.

[DukeNukem]

More importantly, despite the etiology of obesity being an excess of calories consumed over calories expended.

This is a persistent myth that will likely die hard.

And why does this never show up in controlled trials, again?

But it does in animals trials -- as discussed on GCBC. This is really the crux of the entire book: Calories are not created equal.

[eternaltraveler]

The myth in question is, um, the first law of thermodynamics?

did I miss something?

[DukeNukem]

The myth in question is, um, the first law of thermodynamics?

did I miss something?

Yes, you missed a lot, apparently, including a few messages above where I linked to Dr. Eades explanation of this matter.

[eternaltraveler]

This is really the crux of the entire book: Calories are not created equal.

whereas I do tend to agree that lower carbs are probably beneficial for me, I don't think fad diet books are a good reference source.

[eternaltraveler]

just like the myth of the cholesterol hypothesis

please elaborate

is this the one where eating cholesterol (fat) makes more cholesterol and gives you heart disease, etc?

yep.. that is one big BS but you need to look at lipid transport to understand why this is so..

ah,

well if that is the case it is largely correct. However for some people with certain genetic differences it is anything but a myth, but they are in the relative minority so I'll leave that alone for the moment.

I thought he was stating that having high blood LDL and low HDL does not lead to atherosclerosis. Which it does through well known mechanisms.

[DukeNukem]

This is really the crux of the entire book: Calories are not created equal.

whereas I do tend to agree that lower carbs are probably beneficial for me, I don't think fad diet books are a good reference source.

I'm curious to know if baseless cut-downs like this are your typical way of avoiding the actual issue. Frankly, I would pit Dr. Eades' nutritional knowledge against yours any day. Or is everyone who writes a book merely a fad writer to be dismissed?

Sheesh. I'm seriously blown-away by the senselessness of your statement.

BTW, who said anything about a fad diet book???

[eternaltraveler]

This is really the crux of the entire book: Calories are not created equal.

whereas I do tend to agree that lower carbs are probably beneficial for me, I don't think fad diet books are a good reference source.

I'm curious to know if baseless cut-downs like this are your typical way of avoiding the actual issue. Frankly, I would pit Dr. Eades' nutritional knowledge against yours any day. Or is everyone who writes a book merely a fad writer to be dismissed?

Sheesh. I'm seriously blown-away by the senselessness of your statement.

BTW, who said anything about a fad diet book???

I would prefer the actual references, vs references to references (assuming this book is well referenced itself).

Categorical statements like "such and such is a myth" because its in this book do nothing to illuminate the real issue.