• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Why does a high fat, low carb diet not work for me?


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#31 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 March 2010 - 03:55 AM

So you have no thoughts on his theory and research data indicating that fat calories are more easily and efficiently converted to body fat than carbohydrates/sugars?

Sure I do. It's wrong.

#32 Application

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 99
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 02 March 2010 - 04:03 AM

I wouldn't pretend to have thorough knowledge of nutrition research. Besides your conflicting personal experiences and McDougall's unusual personal medical history, why do you dismiss his theory?

So you have no thoughts on his theory and research data indicating that fat calories are more easily and efficiently converted to body fat than carbohydrates/sugars?

Sure I do. It's wrong.


Edited by Application, 02 March 2010 - 04:04 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#33 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 March 2010 - 04:52 AM

I wouldn't pretend to have thorough knowledge of nutrition research. Besides your conflicting personal experiences and McDougall's unusual personal medical history, why do you dismiss his theory?

So you have no thoughts on his theory and research data indicating that fat calories are more easily and efficiently converted to body fat than carbohydrates/sugars?

Sure I do. It's wrong.

The weight of the evidence, but I don't feel like digging it up and writing a paper on it at this hour of the evening. It's been discussed to death around here, and you can find people who have opposing views. Some will argue that "a calorie is a calorie". Others will say that humans are not bomb calorimeters; we are not at chemical equilibrium. Sugars have effects on satiety signals, among other biochemical complexity, that lead ultimately to more obesity on a higher carb diet. If medline isn't your thing, the evidence is all about you, waddling around at the local Walmart. Fat consumption has dropped and carb consumption has risen in this country and the level of obesity has skyrocketed.

#34 Sillewater

  • Guest
  • 1,076 posts
  • 280
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 02 March 2010 - 04:58 AM

Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Nov;281(5):E891-9.
Evaluation of dietary assessment instruments against doubly labeled water, a biomarker of habitual energy intake.
Trabulsi J, Schoeller DA.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1571, USA.
Epidemiological studies of diet and disease rely on the accurate determination of dietary intake and subsequent estimates of nutrient exposure. Although methodically developed and tested, the instruments most often used to collect self-reported intake data are subject to error. It had been assumed that this error was only random in nature; however, an increasing body of literature suggests that systematic error in the reporting of true dietary intake exists as well. Here, we review studies in which dietary intake by self report was determined while energy expenditure was simultaneously measured using the doubly labeled water (DLW) method. In seeking to establish the relative accuracy of each instrument to capture true habitual energy intake, we conclude that none of the self-reported intake instruments demonstrates greater accuracy against DLW. Instead, it is evident that the physical and psychological characteristics of study participants play a significant role in the underreporting bias observed in these studies. Further research is needed to identify underreporters and to determine how to account for this bias in studies of diet and health.

PMID: 11595643 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Found this one over at M&M.

#35 Application

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 99
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 02 March 2010 - 05:58 AM

I have been reading the nutrition forum here for about a year and I work in a medical related (tho not nutrition) field. While its clear that the received wisdom here is that high fat, high protein diets are the healthiest, mostly I see it argued via reference to blogs, evolutionary theory and questionable assumptions that public health messages are closely adhered to.

Walking around its possible to project radically different things. When I see throngs of obese Americans, I think super-sized fast food meals and pizza with crusts stuffed with cheese, not mountains of cereal grains. I would interested to read medline level references showing that sugars/carbs are just as easily converted to body fat as dietary fat.

I wouldn't pretend to have thorough knowledge of nutrition research. Besides your conflicting personal experiences and McDougall's unusual personal medical history, why do you dismiss his theory?

So you have no thoughts on his theory and research data indicating that fat calories are more easily and efficiently converted to body fat than carbohydrates/sugars?

Sure I do. It's wrong.

The weight of the evidence, but I don't feel like digging it up and writing a paper on it at this hour of the evening. It's been discussed to death around here, and you can find people who have opposing views. Some will argue that "a calorie is a calorie". Others will say that humans are not bomb calorimeters; we are not at chemical equilibrium. Sugars have effects on satiety signals, among other biochemical complexity, that lead ultimately to more obesity on a higher carb diet. If medline isn't your thing, the evidence is all about you, waddling around at the local Walmart. Fat consumption has dropped and carb consumption has risen in this country and the level of obesity has skyrocketed.


Edited by Application, 02 March 2010 - 06:27 AM.


#36 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 March 2010 - 06:40 AM

This is getting interesting. Thanks for the reference application. It is very interesting. My current view is that either source of energy from macros needs to be moderate to medium. Too much of either will result in damage to the arterial system, disease and early death and however much of either you consume it has to be the healthy variety. There is far too much extremism going on in the dietary field. One man comes out with a book that makes some interesting points and suddenly everyone is filling up on lard, bacon and dairy. Bad judgment! I would still like to hear what the refutation on the above reference would be. If there is any.

#37 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 March 2010 - 08:18 AM

And by the way does anyone else get reddish patches of skin after consuming high fat (0-6) meals?

#38 Application

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 99
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 02 March 2010 - 09:18 AM

Your welcome. I too would be interested to see it refuted.

Red skin, no. Bloated, sleepy and stupid, yes.

#39 biochemie

  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 03 March 2010 - 02:32 PM

and diabetes has skyrocketed too.

#40 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 March 2010 - 02:49 PM

genetic variance my friend... there is no single optimal diet. i also do not respond well to low carb dieting...

#41 oehaut

  • Guest
  • 393 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Canada

Posted 03 March 2010 - 03:02 PM

I have been reading the nutrition forum here for about a year and I work in a medical related (tho not nutrition) field. While its clear that the received wisdom here is that high fat, high protein diets are the healthiest, mostly I see it argued via reference to blogs, evolutionary theory and questionable assumptions that public health messages are closely adhered to.

Walking around its possible to project radically different things. When I see throngs of obese Americans, I think super-sized fast food meals and pizza with crusts stuffed with cheese, not mountains of cereal grains. I would interested to read medline level references showing that sugars/carbs are just as easily converted to body fat as dietary fat.


My very humble and limited understanding of the matter is that

a) short-term fat that is in EXCESS energy will be more easily store as body fat than sugar. In the case of excess energy as glucose, the body will downregulate fat oxidation and will upregulate glucose oxidation, and will as well try to pack the muscle and the liver with as much glucose as he can. Only when the oxidation can no longer be upregulated and that the liver/muscle reserve are full that de novo lipogenesis will follow.

BUT, in the long-term, any excess energy, be it fat or glucose, will end up as body fat. But short term, excess dietary fat should lead to more body fat. The worst thing is certainly a high fat and sugar meal.

This is probably different in glucose intolerant people.

and

b) if I remember the data well, and this is mostly for Niner, fat comsumption *relatively* to other macro dropped a bit, but in an *absolute* number it stayed the same, while calorie from carbs has been going up, relatively and absolutly.

Edited by oehaut, 03 March 2010 - 03:05 PM.


#42 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 03 March 2010 - 07:51 PM

I have experimented with many many many different diets. The most successful for me for keeping body fat low was a low/moderate fat diet in which I kept the majority of my carbs coming from vegetables, rice, legumes etc.

About a year ago I began the plight to perfect a high fat, low carb diet to see if it would work for me. I tried initially to have the carbs coming mostly from 'low carb' breads, pastas, etc. But I quickly realized that the insulin response from these foods was probably not much better than that of their normal, high carb counterparts. And that 'low carb' made no sense at all in the same context of bread and pasta. In other words it is impossible to have genuinely low carb forms of either.

So I quickly discarded these foods from my diet in favor of a mostly vegetable based diet with alot of 'healthy fats' included. I consumed things like Olive oil, almond/cashew butter, sour cream, cheeses, high fat milk, etc etc etc which essentially did nothing but *seem* raise my visceral fat percentage. So I then discarded the dairy, thinking I might be lactose intolerant from anecdotal reaction.

Since this time my diet has consisted, in the main, of eating two big salads a day consisting of an assortment of phyto-nutrient rich vegetables. Alot of coconut milk (like a can a day) an ocassional sweet potato and a small amount of chick peas/lentils. I estimate my carb consumption being less than 100 grams daily. Sometimes lower than 50 grams a day. Generally the only oil I consume cold is olive oil. I sometimes cook plantains with safflower oil but I never consume this oil raw. I often top my salads with tahini which, when looking at the label, does not state the specific ratios of fats, but only speaks of how much saturated fat is in each serving, mentioning nothing of PUFAs or MUFAs (anyone know the fatty acid profile of tahini?).

Still I seem to be gaining a little visceral fat despite exercising several times a week. I am wondering if, just as many people are sensitive to carbs, could it not also be that some people are sensitive to fats? Maybe some sort of enzyme/metabolic disturbance which causes someone to metabolize fat more slowly than other's. This is just a guess. I would like to know more about this.


Different populations are genetically adapted to different diets. Some populations have the genes for lactose tolerance, others have more amylase as an adaptation to higher carb diets, etc.

I am similarly intolerant to high fat diets. There is no one size fits all.

#43 VesperLynd

  • Guest
  • 180 posts
  • 2

Posted 03 March 2010 - 08:50 PM

Ok, so if a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, of the three:

(1) When is protein most easily stored as body fat?

(2) When is dietary fat most easily stored as body fat?

(3) When are carbs most easily stored as body fat?

(4) What is the body's preference of these three for storing fat and under what ideal conditions? (It would seem the reverse of this question would be the best solution for body fat loss?)


VL

#44 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 04 March 2010 - 12:30 AM

While its clear that the received wisdom here is that high fat, high protein diets are the healthiest,

It's a common mistake that a low-carb diet is a high-protein diet.

It's not. It's a normal protein diet. The see-saw only involves carbs and fats.

#45 Application

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 99
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 04 March 2010 - 02:46 AM

While its clear that the received wisdom here is that high fat, high protein diets are the healthiest,

It's a common mistake that a low-carb diet is a high-protein diet.

It's not. It's a normal protein diet. The see-saw only involves carbs and fats.


OK, sorry for mischaracterizing and thanks for clarifying.

#46 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 04 March 2010 - 03:36 AM

Walking around its possible to project radically different things. When I see throngs of obese Americans, I think super-sized fast food meals and pizza with crusts stuffed with cheese, not mountains of cereal grains. I would interested to read medline level references showing that sugars/carbs are just as easily converted to body fat as dietary fat.

No, we have in fact reduced fat and increased carbs over the years. The change in America's average macronutrient ratio has come about primarily from two things: The low-fat message that we've been hearing for the past thirty years or so, and government corn subsidies started in the Nixon Administration, which led to extremely cheap high fructose corn syrup, thus extremely cheap high calorie sugared drinks and candy. Here is a paper that discusses the problem. See figures 3 and 4 for macronutrient ratios and absolute caloric amounts.

#47 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 04 March 2010 - 03:40 AM

This is getting interesting. Thanks for the reference application. It is very interesting. My current view is that either source of energy from macros needs to be moderate to medium. Too much of either will result in damage to the arterial system, disease and early death and however much of either you consume it has to be the healthy variety. There is far too much extremism going on in the dietary field. One man comes out with a book that makes some interesting points and suddenly everyone is filling up on lard, bacon and dairy. Bad judgment! I would still like to hear what the refutation on the above reference would be. If there is any.

The above "reference" is not a reference, it's a blog post by a quack doctor. Refutations have been presented in these forums, but accepting them might require you to rethink tightly held beliefs.

#48 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 04 March 2010 - 03:59 AM

This is getting interesting. Thanks for the reference application. It is very interesting. My current view is that either source of energy from macros needs to be moderate to medium. Too much of either will result in damage to the arterial system, disease and early death and however much of either you consume it has to be the healthy variety. There is far too much extremism going on in the dietary field. One man comes out with a book that makes some interesting points and suddenly everyone is filling up on lard, bacon and dairy. Bad judgment! I would still like to hear what the refutation on the above reference would be. If there is any.

The above "reference" is not a reference, it's a blog post by a quack doctor. Refutations have been presented in these forums, but accepting them might require you to rethink tightly held beliefs.


A 'Quack' doctor? Do you refute his title? If so please provide evidence that he is not a real doctor. Additionally please provide evidence that the doctors on those Paleo blogs are not 'quack' doctors. Furthermore let us continue without this extremist stance. It is not getting us very far in terms of understanding.

#49 Application

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 99
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 04 March 2010 - 04:14 AM

One of the papers McDougall draws from is available in full text- the page linked below has the data on efficiency of converting various macronutrients to body fat. I don't see any justification in calling Mcdougall a quack either.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....C424278/?page=4

This is getting interesting. Thanks for the reference application. It is very interesting. My current view is that either source of energy from macros needs to be moderate to medium. Too much of either will result in damage to the arterial system, disease and early death and however much of either you consume it has to be the healthy variety. There is far too much extremism going on in the dietary field. One man comes out with a book that makes some interesting points and suddenly everyone is filling up on lard, bacon and dairy. Bad judgment! I would still like to hear what the refutation on the above reference would be. If there is any.

The above "reference" is not a reference, it's a blog post by a quack doctor. Refutations have been presented in these forums, but accepting them might require you to rethink tightly held beliefs.



#50 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 04 March 2010 - 04:15 AM

TheFountain, I am curious, what is your ethnic heritage? I'm wondering if regional origin has much to do with tolerance of a high fat diet.

#51 Application

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 99
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 04 March 2010 - 04:26 AM

Just to clarify this point: page 235 of the article you link states that absolute fat consumption has remained relatively stable (or increased if you average men and women changes):

The major contributor to reductions in the percent of calories from fat was not a reduction in the numerator (absolute fat intake), but an increase in the denominator (total caloric intake). For instance, absolute fat intake de- creased by only 5% in men, while relative fat intake declined by 11%. In women, the difference was even starker: absolute fat intake actually increased by 11% while relative fat intake declined by 9%. The increase in total calories reflected increased carbohydrate con- sumption despite relatively stable or declining absolute fat consumption.11...


Walking around its possible to project radically different things. When I see throngs of obese Americans, I think super-sized fast food meals and pizza with crusts stuffed with cheese, not mountains of cereal grains. I would interested to read medline level references showing that sugars/carbs are just as easily converted to body fat as dietary fat.

No, we have in fact reduced fat and increased carbs over the years. The change in America's average macronutrient ratio has come about primarily from two things: The low-fat message that we've been hearing for the past thirty years or so, and government corn subsidies started in the Nixon Administration, which led to extremely cheap high fructose corn syrup, thus extremely cheap high calorie sugared drinks and candy. Here is a paper that discusses the problem. See figures 3 and 4 for macronutrient ratios and absolute caloric amounts.


Edited by Application, 04 March 2010 - 04:31 AM.


#52 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 04 March 2010 - 04:29 AM

TheFountain, I am curious, what is your ethnic heritage? I'm wondering if regional origin has much to do with tolerance of a high fat diet.


I find that the heritage logic doesn't work for me. I'm Indian, and my family has been vegetarian for many generations.
I am perfectly comfortable with a paleo diet. Occasionally I crave carbs when my liver is stressed due to antibiotics, though.

Edited by rwac, 04 March 2010 - 04:32 AM.


#53 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 04 March 2010 - 05:18 AM

One of the papers McDougall draws from is available in full text- the page linked below has the data on efficiency of converting various macronutrients to body fat. I don't see any justification in calling Mcdougall a quack either.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....C424278/?page=4

This is getting interesting. Thanks for the reference application. It is very interesting. My current view is that either source of energy from macros needs to be moderate to medium. Too much of either will result in damage to the arterial system, disease and early death and however much of either you consume it has to be the healthy variety. There is far too much extremism going on in the dietary field. One man comes out with a book that makes some interesting points and suddenly everyone is filling up on lard, bacon and dairy. Bad judgment! I would still like to hear what the refutation on the above reference would be. If there is any.

The above "reference" is not a reference, it's a blog post by a quack doctor. Refutations have been presented in these forums, but accepting them might require you to rethink tightly held beliefs.

Thanks for the reference, Application. It appears to take the stance that "a calorie is not a calorie", claiming that fat leads to more weight gain than carbohydrate. That may well be true when precise dosages of fat and CHO are administered in a controlled setting. However, in a "free feeding" environment, i.e. the real world, fat and CHO have very different effects. Specifically, fat increases satiety, and fructose interferes with satiety mechanisms. (See the Lustig lecture that's been posted here numerous times.) Thus fat induces people to eat fewer calories, and sugars induce people to eat more calories. I'm well aware that "good carbs" exist, but they are not prominent in the average American junk diet. I found this quote from page 1023 of the energy storage paper that you linked to be somewhat telling:

A number of our subjects had great difficulty gaining in spite of an increase in fat intake and a reduction in carbohydrate intake.

I call McDougall a "quack" not because I think he isn't a doctor. I don't doubt that he is. There are a lot of doctors who are fools. On the basis of his blog, he appears to be emotional, biased, and not possessing great judgment regarding nutrition. That is my impression, and my basis for the use of the shorthand term "quack".

#54 Mia K.

  • Guest
  • 176 posts
  • 15
  • Location:Tropical SoFla. US

Posted 04 March 2010 - 06:15 AM

A 'Quack' doctor? Do you refute his title? If so please provide evidence that he is not a real doctor. Additionally please provide evidence that the doctors on those Paleo blogs are not 'quack' doctors. Furthermore let us continue without this extremist stance. It is not getting us very far in terms of understanding.


Mc Dougall's an MD  

http://www.drmcdougall.com/about.htm

  With an empire to maintain.  Goodness, gracious.

Read up on diabetologist Richard K. Bernstein and his approach to metabolic disorders (esp. Diabetes).  He is a successful practitioner, current in his field.

Yrs, MK 

#55 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 04 March 2010 - 06:34 AM

TheFountain, I am curious, what is your ethnic heritage? I'm wondering if regional origin has much to do with tolerance of a high fat diet.


I am a mix of Irish, Dutch, German and some western european heritage. I wonder if the Irish in me has anything to do with it. Or if being a mixture of all the above somehow causes a clash in genetics. The picture I showed of my body earlier was taken when my diet was very low in fat, I was actually meticulously consuming no more than 30 grams a day in fat and I was on that specific diet for about 2 years. Additionally, because my fat intake was so low my carb intake was much higher (healthier carbs of course). So The idea that low fat diets cause weight gain in everyone is silly. And I wasn't 'skinny fat' either at that time because I had a little definition in my arms, abs and back so my body fat was fairly low. I am now in the process of lowering it again by lowering my fat intake levels. I felt better that way.

#56 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 04 March 2010 - 06:50 AM

One of the papers McDougall draws from is available in full text- the page linked below has the data on efficiency of converting various macronutrients to body fat. I don't see any justification in calling Mcdougall a quack either.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....C424278/?page=4

This is getting interesting. Thanks for the reference application. It is very interesting. My current view is that either source of energy from macros needs to be moderate to medium. Too much of either will result in damage to the arterial system, disease and early death and however much of either you consume it has to be the healthy variety. There is far too much extremism going on in the dietary field. One man comes out with a book that makes some interesting points and suddenly everyone is filling up on lard, bacon and dairy. Bad judgment! I would still like to hear what the refutation on the above reference would be. If there is any.

The above "reference" is not a reference, it's a blog post by a quack doctor. Refutations have been presented in these forums, but accepting them might require you to rethink tightly held beliefs.

Thanks for the reference, Application. It appears to take the stance that "a calorie is not a calorie", claiming that fat leads to more weight gain than carbohydrate. That may well be true when precise dosages of fat and CHO are administered in a controlled setting. However, in a "free feeding" environment, i.e. the real world, fat and CHO have very different effects. Specifically, fat increases satiety, and fructose interferes with satiety mechanisms. (See the Lustig lecture that's been posted here numerous times.) Thus fat induces people to eat fewer calories, and sugars induce people to eat more calories. I'm well aware that "good carbs" exist, but they are not prominent in the average American junk diet. I found this quote from page 1023 of the energy storage paper that you linked to be somewhat telling:

A number of our subjects had great difficulty gaining in spite of an increase in fat intake and a reduction in carbohydrate intake.

I call McDougall a "quack" not because I think he isn't a doctor. I don't doubt that he is. There are a lot of doctors who are fools. On the basis of his blog, he appears to be emotional, biased, and not possessing great judgment regarding nutrition. That is my impression, and my basis for the use of the shorthand term "quack".


The issue is more complicated than you are painting it. You are talking about the nixon administrations implication of a corn subsidy and then somehow arriving at 'carbs are the problem'. No, carbs are not the problem. Bad carbs are a small part of the problem but overall dietary stupidity is the problem. The typical western diet consists of bad carbs, bad fats, high sodium, high sugar, artificial sweeteners and nutritionally deficient foods. And you and other's are relating it as 'they eat a mostly grain based diet thus they are fat'. This is so not the case. When I took the picture I showed earlier my diet was high specific grains like rice, pasta (what I assumed was healthy pasta at the time) and legumes like lentils. Of course I consumed vegetables. But my fat intake was no more than around 30 grams a day for about 2 years straight on said diet. I think I looked pretty lean. I look the same now but guess what? More visceral fat since I added higher fat (and lower carb) intake to my diet. I am not blaming all fats like MUFAs with good amount of oleic acid, but the point is the low fat, higher carb diet did not make me gain weight at all. Let us stop being extremists because we don't know everything as we so arrogantly presume we do. You do not begin at 'this is what the data says so those who experience different are kooks'. You start at 'experience varies, therefor there must be more to this than we think we know or that the data shows'.

Edited by TheFountain, 04 March 2010 - 06:53 AM.


#57 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 04 March 2010 - 07:05 AM

So The idea that low fat diets cause weight gain in everyone is silly.

No one is saying that.

#58 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 04 March 2010 - 07:18 AM

I still don't think a diet should be only about weight.
My cousin eats a lot of bread every day and he's REALLY lean and so are many other people.

The real question is, how healthy are they? what is their blood like?

#59 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 04 March 2010 - 07:19 AM

One of the papers McDougall draws from is available in full text- the page linked below has the data on efficiency of converting various macronutrients to body fat. I don't see any justification in calling Mcdougall a quack either.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....C424278/?page=4

This is getting interesting. Thanks for the reference application. It is very interesting. My current view is that either source of energy from macros needs to be moderate to medium. Too much of either will result in damage to the arterial system, disease and early death and however much of either you consume it has to be the healthy variety. There is far too much extremism going on in the dietary field. One man comes out with a book that makes some interesting points and suddenly everyone is filling up on lard, bacon and dairy. Bad judgment! I would still like to hear what the refutation on the above reference would be. If there is any.

The above "reference" is not a reference, it's a blog post by a quack doctor. Refutations have been presented in these forums, but accepting them might require you to rethink tightly held beliefs.

Thanks for the reference, Application. It appears to take the stance that "a calorie is not a calorie", claiming that fat leads to more weight gain than carbohydrate. That may well be true when precise dosages of fat and CHO are administered in a controlled setting. However, in a "free feeding" environment, i.e. the real world, fat and CHO have very different effects. Specifically, fat increases satiety, and fructose interferes with satiety mechanisms. (See the Lustig lecture that's been posted here numerous times.) Thus fat induces people to eat fewer calories, and sugars induce people to eat more calories. I'm well aware that "good carbs" exist, but they are not prominent in the average American junk diet. I found this quote from page 1023 of the energy storage paper that you linked to be somewhat telling:

A number of our subjects had great difficulty gaining in spite of an increase in fat intake and a reduction in carbohydrate intake.

I call McDougall a "quack" not because I think he isn't a doctor. I don't doubt that he is. There are a lot of doctors who are fools. On the basis of his blog, he appears to be emotional, biased, and not possessing great judgment regarding nutrition. That is my impression, and my basis for the use of the shorthand term "quack".

The issue is more complicated than you are painting it. You are talking about the nixon administrations implication of a corn subsidy and then somehow arriving at 'carbs are the problem'. No, carbs are not the problem. Bad carbs are a small part of the problem but overall dietary stupidity is the problem. The typical western diet consists of bad carbs, bad fats, high sodium, high sugar, artificial sweeteners and nutritionally deficient foods. And you and other's are relating it as 'they eat a mostly grain based diet thus they are fat'. This is so not the case. When I took the picture I showed earlier my diet was high specific grains like rice, pasta (what I assumed was healthy pasta at the time) and legumes like lentils. Of course I consumed vegetables. But my fat intake was no more than around 30 grams a day for about 2 years straight on said diet. I think I looked pretty lean. I look the same now but guess what? More visceral fat since I added higher fat (and lower carb) intake to my diet. I am not blaming all fats like MUFAs with good amount of oleic acid, but the point is the low fat, higher carb diet did not make me gain weight at all. Let us stop being extremists because we don't know everything as we so arrogantly presume we do. You do not begin at 'this is what the data says so those who experience different are kooks'. You start at 'experience varies, therefor there must be more to this than we think we know or that the data shows'.

How can anyone have a coherent discussion with you if you just make shit up? Did you even read what I wrote? Do you not get the connection between cheap corn and cheap HFCS, which is MADE FROM CORN? Do you not get the connection between HFCS drinks that are cheaper than water and their overconsumption? Do you hear me dissing good carbs? Do you know what "satiety" means? I'm not talking about "everyone". I'm talking about population averages. Your quack doctor seems to be talking about "everyone", though. You seem to think that "everyone is filling up on lard, bacon and dairy". Who's the extremist?

#60 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,918 posts
  • 122

Posted 04 March 2010 - 07:29 AM

Re: Why does a high fat, low carb diet not work for me?


Because low carb diet makes you fat...

http://cnn.com/video...carb.vs.fat.cnn




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users