Weight Loss News and Current Events - Grain Brain




View Full Version : Grain Brain


diamondgeog
12-11-2013, 02:22 PM
http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/carbs-messing-brain-142900086.html

Came across the above link today. It mirrors a lot of what I've discovered the last 7 months.

For me lowering carbs was the absolute hands down best approach to regaining my health. It not only has helped me loose 50lbs (still have an ultimate goal of under 200), but it has also given me control over my hunger and food choices for the first time in a long time.

Exercising has helped me feel GREAT. As good or better than in my 20s. Mentally much clearer.

It was interesting he mentioned 6 days a week of 20 minutes each. I was telling my wife to shoot for 6 days a week of 30 mins each. I just found something sustaining and empowering almost magical when I was doing 6 or 7 days a week, week after week.

I am finally ready personally to put vegetables and fruits front and center. I still each too much meat. But I am absolutely sure for me that starting with cutting down carbs was the key to everything. It took away my urges for bread, pasta, candy, cookies, potato chips, fast food, which were regulars in my diet. And all heavy on carbs.

Not saying lowering carbs is The Thing for everyone. But it was for me, at least to get everything else rolling.


diamondgeog
12-11-2013, 02:35 PM
Oh well. It will probably get buried here, this section isn't used much. And it truly is weight loss support. Health support, life support. Pity. It deserves to be read.

nelie
12-11-2013, 02:53 PM
Well I think whether low carb works for you is different than whether this book itself is correct. I actually started reading the book out of curiosity and put it down after many inaccuracies. I may go back you reading it but the main issues I had from just the start of the book are:
1) the idea that our recent ancestors ate a low carb diet. Sure, Midwestern pioneers aren't my ancestors but if you read Little House On the Prairie, you'll see how grain focused their diets were. My ancestors are known for eating corn for many, many centuries. Various grains have been used for thousands of years as staples in the diet.

2) there have been a couple things that have long been linked to dementia and Alzheimer's that aren't mentioned. Aluminum cookware and packaging. Vitamin b-12 and b-12 absorption in the elderly. Some people genetically have issues with absorption of b-12 but as we get older, our ability to absorb vitamins in general and b-12 specifically decreases. I've read many articles indicating that it may be that b-12 absorption is the cause of most dementia and Alzheimer's cases. In a book discussing brain resiliency, leaving this out as an option is an onerous omission.

Anyway, my overall belief is follow what you think works for you. Exercise and brain exercises do help with brain resiliency. Enzyme cq10, vitamin b-12 ( sublingual preferred) and essential fats also help.


diamondgeog
12-11-2013, 03:07 PM
I guess time frames are important. If ancestors refers to the bulk of the last 2 million years, a few centuries is insignificant. So you could say for the last few centures all those proximate ancestors were not as healthy as they could be.

Or, perhaps, things can become healtheir or less bad over a time frame of centuries? I know wheat was never a big part of any diet going back thousands of years. Corn I am not aware of.

I took from the article that it is the insulin response and inflammation and such that are important. If grain or corns don't trigger those things in you or anyone then I guess they would not have the same negative impacts.

nelie
12-11-2013, 03:16 PM
His timeframe was 100 years ago which is why I put recent ancestors :). Sorry I was not specific. I do plan to finish the book but from the start, his bias is already showing so I'll take whatever he says with a grain.. Of salt.

Changergirl
12-12-2013, 12:19 AM
I agree with nelie about the inaccuracies that a lot of 'low carb' diets/lifestyles have about the history of human eating. The agricultural revolution first happened over 10,000 years ago. So yes, wheat has been a part of our diet going back thousands of years. And so even though the majority of human history has happened without 'grains' it is more than just a few centuries where a majority of our diet has come from them. And I'm sure our bodies have evolved/adapted over those 10,000 years to allow for greater digestion of grains.

I'm not trying to say that low carb diets don't work, because I know for a lot of people they do and they are the only thing that will work for them. But I don't think you can use the argument that over 10,000 years ago people didn't use to eat grains so therefore we shouldn't eat them today.

nelie
12-12-2013, 08:25 AM
Well, also although grains weren't farmed, they were eaten. Most of the world has been grain based for thousands of years. There are very few cultures that haven't been, for instance the First Nations people of Canada.

diamondgeog
12-12-2013, 10:26 AM
Grains but not breads. Nothing like what many consume now. Way more grains than ever before. Bread is a relatively new invention. And bread now and even the wheat is nothing like a 100 years ago.

This is purely anecdotal evidence but virtually all the negative effects low carb people tout were happening to me. And virtually all the positives they tout when you lower them have happened to me. Both body and mind.

Speaking of 100 years ago. People were not eating a lot of processed foods. I don't know what their carb intake was or how different those carbs were nutritionally, but I do know the average person was way more active which would have led to greater carb resistance.

We ignorned carbs for too long and look whathappened: obesity, heart disease, dementia, cancer like never before. I personally feel it is the heart of foolishness to ignore things like grain brain. And you do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Of course there are going to be some things, rightfully, pointed out. Does not mean he is not on the right track overall.

nelie
12-12-2013, 12:02 PM
I don't think carbs are the problem but you did mention two things that are in that lower activity levels and processed foods. I personally thing lower activity levels are the main problem. There has been a lot of studies with sitting and lower activity with lots of diseases. I think it is a multifaceted problem and again, most societies in the world have been carb based for thousands of years. What has been the change that happened in the last 30 years? Computers? Requiring jobs with more sitting? More sedentary jobs in general? Processed foods? Increase in antibiotics and hormones in our animals we use for food? Fertilizers used on our fruits and vegetables? Increased pollution? Recent findings about intestinal bacteria that may play a part in obesity? There are a million things that could factor in.

There are also other related factors like with less outdoor activity, people are more likely to be vitamin d deficient which causes many issues. And with us living to be an older age, it is more likely that absorption of vitamins becomes an issue and a higher chance of dementia.

I think there have been many changes in our recent past and to me, it doesn't seem to point to carbs. Increased sugar? Possibly. Decreased activity? Definitely seems to be a factor.

diamondgeog
12-12-2013, 08:40 PM
Those are all very valid points. And this is a complex issue: on the level of individuals, communities, societies, nations, and globally.

But I think carbs may be like a 'quarterback'. Certainly a good football offense needs a lot of parts. But the most important, especially at the NFL level is the quarterback.

Carbs for instance were making me lethargic. Do I have a desk job: yes. Do I have some free time, yes. Did I use that when eating a lot of carbs for exercise? No. Do I now? Yes. Now of course I also got motivated which was the number one reason.

But carbs, I believe from my personal experience were keeping me perpetually hungry and lethargic. They were and are the quarterback for me for much and probably most weight and then heath issues.

And even if they aren't avoiding carbs (and I mean in particular refined carbs, starchy vegetable carbs, bread, and pasta carbs) is not a bad way to go. I do not limit fruit and vegetable carbs. You will avoid fast food, processed food, a lot of bad stuff. This is my goal, I am still a work in progress.

And I had for years only eaten whole wheat bread and pasta but I was still getting bigger and bigger. So for me personally limiting carbs is working, even whole grain ones. And I personally think they are of fairly big significance in the 'obesity epidemic'.

nelie
12-12-2013, 10:51 PM
For me, carbs keep me energized and fuel my workouts. I eat a moderate amount of carbs, 170g to 200g per day. I think everyone is different though. I think some may do well on low carbs but that doesn't mean it is for everyone.

diamondgeog
12-12-2013, 11:38 PM
The USDA recommendation is close to 300 grams. So you are getting 60% or so. Plus it sounds like you exercise more than the average person.

I am not a calorie counter, it wouldn't work for me. We live near a 'gourmet' taco place. I have chips and guacamole there often. So I am not fanatic about it. But I have cut out pasta, bread a lot, fast food, and snacks. So I am much lower carb. I think the 280 grams or so recommended, especially combined frequently with not enough exercise are big drivers of obesity. And it would not surprise me at all that just doing the recommended carbs a day is making many people both lethargic and overeaters.

nelie
12-12-2013, 11:42 PM
I'm somewhat lucky in that I never cared for fast food or pasta although I love bread. I make my own bread for my husband but I don't really eat it. And yeah, I eat about 60% to 65% carbs. And calorie counting is really the only thing that seems to work for me but I'm a loose calorie counter, as it may not happen every day.

And since I do think activity is the biggest issue with our health, I try to exercise daily and generally stay active.

kaplods
12-13-2013, 07:53 AM
Personally, I don't think activity is the biggest issue with the declining state of Americans' health, because I don't believe there is a single biggest issue - and I think that's why the research results are so often inconclusive or contradictory.

Genetics, activity level and type, calorie intake, carb intake, fat intake, meat intake, sodium intake, freggie intake, processed food intake, environmental toxins and stressors, stress levels, exposure or lack of exposure to healthy and potentially harmful microorganisms, use of prescription and nonprescription chemicals (medicinal and recreational), medical history, sleep quality, coping strayegies social support, emotional resilence...

All these variables interact to effect and determine health status, and I suspect both national and personal "health crises" will be difficult to resolve until and unless we take a more holistic, integrated approach to health (Easier said than done, I know).

Until we know more though, health management ends up being a lot like juggling knives (or maybe even running chainsaws), or at least like a game like Jenga where moving one piece can affect all the other game pieces.

Giving up wheat and reducing carbs has dramatically improved many of my health issues (even when no weight loss resulted) and I credit low-carb and paleo authors with inspiring me to experiment - but I still think the vast majority overstate and oversimplify their case (which is pretty much true for most diet and health related theories), which only serves to discredit the entire field, not just the individual theories.

It ends up being very difficult to avoid throwing the babies out with the bath water.

diamondgeog
12-13-2013, 10:18 AM
There is value and necessity for mufti-regression thinking and complexity acceptance when dealing with health and weight and diet and exercise for individuals and groups.

But there is also something called Occam's razor. It is used different ways but says start with the easiest explanation first.

Newton said it as "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

Or "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

I have heard talks by Mark Bitman and Jamie Oliver. Bitman boils a lot of the things down to eat food. By this he means food is something you could have eaten say 150 years ago. Something that existed then. So cut out processed foods, etc.

I feel incredible. I now feel better than I ever have in my life at 48. I am down 55 lbs but also so much stronger and fitter. I am a runner now. Which I never thought possible. My diet is still far from perfect but so many of my daily items were high in carbs: fast food, potato chips, breads, pasta, candy bars. I targeted those and the results were phenomenal.

We still have to eat. So to me lowering carbs is excellent advice. What did I have left to eat after cutting those out? Fruits, vegetables, beans, dairy, meats. And with those as the basis of my diet now it is much healthier.

Grain Brain, Wheat Belly, etc. I think they are very powerful and helpful. Not the whole story but a 'baby' without question worth saving.

kaplods
12-13-2013, 01:27 PM
But there is also something called Occam's razor. It is used different ways but says start with the easiest explanation first.

Newton said it as "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

Or "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.


These very descriptions of Occam's razor actually prove my point. Health and weight loss are not a single phenomenon, but thousands (if not millions) and the anti-grain theories have not been proven either true or sufficient to explain health and weight loss phenomena. And a single theory to explain it all isn't science it's magic or religion.

After all, the simplest explanation is that "Because it's the Will of God."

Also Paleo, low-carb, and anti-grain theories are neither simple, nor consistent either between or within. There is no agreement in the scientific community as a whole or even within the theoretical communities themselves.

What do you do when there are fifty thousand explanations and they're all simple (or for that matter, all complex?)

That is the situation currently, and why research results are conflicting.

I've been reading Paleo and anti-grain theory for nearly 30 years and weight loss theory for nearly as long as I've been able to read, and there are many plausible and competing theories that are no more complex and no less supported by the research.

Also, there is no unified anti-grain theory. The experts don't even always agree on which plant seeds are grains.


The science ahas a long way to go before many conclusions can be drawn. Right now there are no proven and too many equally plausible, equally simple theories.

nelie
12-13-2013, 01:34 PM
Well fruits, veggies (at least starchy) and beans/legumes are usually what people lump into the carbs category but I guess quantities of such would matter to be considered low carb or not.

I think the idea of we are all an experiment of 1 is a great ideas as well. I've played around with various foods, various macros, etc and I feel like I'm in a good place food wise. Amazingly, I've started an iodine supplement and although I don't know if is is a placebo or not but it makes a huge difference for me energywise and hungerwise. It is a small amount (2 drops of 2% solution once a day) but I'm more energetic and less hungry. I'm at the point where I have to remind myself to eat sometimes. I also plan to see an endocrinologist next month and this will definitely be a topic. I'm still experimenting as well because I'm a skeptic at heart :). Anyway, I agree there are many factors at play in terms of obesity and I don't think 1 single solution works for everyone.

diamondgeog
12-13-2013, 02:05 PM
I've cut out starchy vegetables, or reduced them dramatically. I am OK with fruit, but not fruit drinks. I stay well away from them.

Kaplods I understand it is complex and different from person to person. What I started back in May before I heard of Wheat Belly and Grain Brain were targeting how many carbs I was eating.

It has resulted in dramtic improvements to my well-being beyond anything I could have hoped for. So for me, yes, no matter how complex it is in reality acting like Grain Brain and Wheat Belly are true (and frankly I probably have more carbs than they recommend but MUCH less than before) was extremely powerfully good and Real.

Suzanne 3FC
12-16-2013, 11:44 PM
Diamongeog, I also gave up most starchy vegetables and made similar changes and I also feel much better! I think my approach is different, but I think we share the benefits :)

I read Wheat Belly and wasn't impressed. The author blamed wheat for a long list of ailments and claimed that giving it up would result in many beneficial changes. At the time that I read it, I had already been off of wheat and gluten for more than 7 months. I didn't experience any of the changes the author claimed I could expect. I gave it up because I personally had problems digesting it and a lot of people do, but I think most people tolerate wheat and other grains just fine. I also think that grains in general are not only fine for most people, but are essential around the globe. I've looked at the argument the anti-grain movement is making, and I personally don't find it convincing. I think the average American diet does have a problem, but I don't think it's the grains at fault - the problem lies in highly processed foods that combine refined grains with salt, sugar, tons of artificial food additives, etc. Any natural food can be turned into something that is dangerous to our health.

That said, I rarely eat starchy vegetables and the only grain I eat is oatmeal :) I choose my foods based on their nutrient content and try to eat foods that are packed with nutrients so I get the most bang out of my calories. I don't believe in counting carbs because the healthiest foods on the planet are carbs. Spinach, strawberries, blueberries, tomatoes, peppers, green beans, etc. Where else will we get the necessary vitamins and antioxidants we need to live long and healthy lives? I think too much focus is placed on breaking down food into such basic terms as carbs, fats, and protein, and not enough focus on the nutrients we really need. I think the word 'carb' is sadly misused. Almost everything I eat is a carb and I lost over 100 pounds this way. I live on fruits, non-starchy vegetables, legumes such as lentils, and a limited amount of seafood. When I look at the nutrient content of most grains, there isn't enough there to justify including it in my own diet plan, based on my personal health goals. I choose to eat oats daily because they contain avenanthramides, a polyphenol that does amazing things for our arteries :) I try to take a very practical approach to what I put on my plate and the results are worth it. I have a history of cancer and I have a heart condition, so I changed my approach and literally eat to live. I go through a few pounds of vegetables and fruits every day. I'm healthier than I've ever been in my life.

Mad Donnelly
12-17-2013, 12:11 AM
I took from the article that it is the insulin response and inflammation and such that are important. If grain or corns don't trigger those things in you or anyone then I guess they would not have the same negative impacts.
Okay, now I'm intrigued because I'm reading more and more about this inflammation being the culprit.

I will say that I AM biased towards low carb because everything I've read about low carb makes too much sense both TO me and FOR me. Someone starts spouting off low fat, I turn right off.

This is what the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine says: "Since our bodies make plenty of cholesterol for our needs, we do not need to add any in our diet. Cholesterol is found in all foods that come from animals: red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, milk, cheese, yogurt, and every other meat and dairy product. Choosing lean cuts of meat is not enough; the cholesterol is mainly in the lean portion. Many people are surprised to learn that chicken contains as much cholesterol as beef. Every four-ounce serving of beef or chicken contains 100 milligrams of cholesterol. Also, most shellfish are very high in cholesterol. All animal products should be avoided for this reason."

So chicken's no good for you and basically don't eat any meat or fish or dairy at all. So what DO we eat? They don't in any way address how to make a diet such as this remotely feasible. I don't think it can be done.

As far as Alzheimer's this is a hot topic for my sister. When my mom dies, she wants an autopsy so we know for sure whether she has Alzheimer's or not. I dunno why but I guess she's keen on knowing how to prevent it. She thinks low carb is crazy. I'd love for her to embrace Grain Brain.

Mad Donnelly
12-17-2013, 12:39 AM
Grains but not breads. Nothing like what many consume now. Way more grains than ever before. Bread is a relatively new invention. And bread now and even the wheat is nothing like a 100 years ago.

This is purely anecdotal evidence but virtually all the negative effects low carb people tout were happening to me. And virtually all the positives they tout when you lower them have happened to me. Both body and mind.

Speaking of 100 years ago. People were not eating a lot of processed foods. I don't know what their carb intake was or how different those carbs were nutritionally, but I do know the average person was way more active which would have led to greater carb resistance.
Everybody has good points but, Diamondgeog, I so get what you've been saying. Absolutely years ago, there were grains, but they were GRAINS not the processed crap they try to pass off as whole grains today.

kaplods
12-17-2013, 01:41 AM
When we read that sun exposure causes skin cancer, even though we're not told how much sun is too much, we don't decide to live like vampires, avoiding sunlight as if we would burst into flames within seconds.

And yet, when we're told specific foods have negative consequences when eaten in excess (with or without quantity guidelines), we often decide that the food is essentially poison and it should never, ever cross our lips under any circumstances - or if that doesn't seem practical we decide that since we don't know what to eat, we should just continue to eat whatever we want, whenever we want and let the chips fall where they may.

I think eating healthfully is a whole lot simpler than that. Get a checkup, make a few changes in your diet that you think might help and in a few months see how you feel and maybe get another check up.

For me, it's been a very long journey, and it's not over. I continue to experiment with diet, exercise, and other lifestyle changes. Sometimes the results are cclear and measureable, sometimes they're inconclusive, so I keep experimenting.

For me, wheat and to a lesser degree other high glycemic foods trigger unpleasant symptoms that you can literally see on my face. Hubby knows within hours if I have eaten something I shouldn't have, because my face gets red and puffy or worse, scaley.. Many foods I've given up or drastically limited have less obvious results.

I think for most of us, trial and error to determine where the line lies between excess and moderation works just fine. And even if we aren't sure what an optimally healthy diet/lifestyle might look like, most of us can probably think of a few changes that would probably be a little healthier than whatever we're doing now.

Yes, a lot of the experts disagree, but I think much of what they do agree on, we (as a nation) aren't doing very well, so we can start there.

Almost all of the "healthy diet" perspectives (including low-fat, low-carb, paleo, good carb, veg*n....) recommend eating more low-calorie veggies and less processed foods, especially fast food, snacky "junk food" and highly processed meats.

Ironically, the foods which we all agree are worst for us make up a larger percentage in the standard American diet than ever before, and the foods we all agree are best for us (especially non-starchy veggies and low sugar fruits) come in at or near an all-time low.

I thought I was doing pretty well, usually getting in the recommended 5 servings or more of fruits and veggies (including corn, potatoes, peas and other legumes), but I was often choosing the higher digestible carb options - fruit, potatoes, beans... plus grains.

I was mostly eating foods considered "healthy" from a non-low-carb perspective, but getting way too many calories and eating more sugar and starch than I needed.

Someone who tends towards underweight rather than obesity, might need those extra carbs and calories, but I didn't.

What made me consider low-grain, semi-paleo was reading over and over while researching my autoimmune disease, about the link between high carb, especially high grain diets and AI conditions. Not all autoimmunity experts agree on the significance or meaning of this link, or if it even exists. Some argue that the high-carb diet causes AI disease, others believe it simply aggravates AI disease, and others believe the link applies only to refined carbs.

It was worth experimenting to me. I'm finding it very difficult to stick with the diet I feel best on, but I have learned to avoid what makes me feel sickest.

I think the biggest obstacle most of us face is the idea that we're supposed to completely overhaul our diet and exercise habits, drastically changing our lifestyle all at once. I think this strategy was responsible for a good part of my previous history of weight loss failure.

Lifestyle overhaul is difficult and miserable, sometimes almost impossible. Modest, gradual changes are easier and less uncomfortable, but yield smaller results. We're not taught to accept modest results, so we end up in a no-win situation. Be miserable with the drastic changes or be miserable with less-than dramatic results.

Personally, I don't think there is a single healthy type of diet, even for individuals. Because of my autoimmune disease and diabetes, I think my "healthy diet" options are going to mostly be towards the carb-restricted range. Because of my high blood pressure and cholesterol levels, I need to be somewhat careful of fat and mineral content (keeping sodium and potassium in balance, for example). Because of my weight and appetite, calorie restriction will probably always be necessary and choosing the most volume for the fewest calories is a good strategy.

I think all of us can learn to customize our diets to our unique needs and desires. Until the nutritional science and medical fields gets better at customizing diets for individuals, trial and error is going to be our best tool.

We're all different only means we don't know all the variables yet.

nelie
12-17-2013, 09:29 AM
Okay, now I'm intrigued because I'm reading more and more about this inflammation being the culprit.

I will say that I AM biased towards low carb because everything I've read about low carb makes too much sense both TO me and FOR me. Someone starts spouting off low fat, I turn right off.

This is what the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine says: "Since our bodies make plenty of cholesterol for our needs, we do not need to add any in our diet. Cholesterol is found in all foods that come from animals: red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, milk, cheese, yogurt, and every other meat and dairy product. Choosing lean cuts of meat is not enough; the cholesterol is mainly in the lean portion. Many people are surprised to learn that chicken contains as much cholesterol as beef. Every four-ounce serving of beef or chicken contains 100 milligrams of cholesterol. Also, most shellfish are very high in cholesterol. All animal products should be avoided for this reason."

So chicken's no good for you and basically don't eat any meat or fish or dairy at all. So what DO we eat? They don't in any way address how to make a diet such as this remotely feasible. I don't think it can be done.

PCRM promotes a vegan diet and there are millions of people around the world who eat vegan or near vegan. In many countries, meat is a condiment. Many other countries subside on mostly on grains, legumes, veggies and fruits. As far as a vegan diet, I think there are something like 2 million Americans so it can be done and is feasible. Although the PCRM recommendations are a side bar to this conversation, I figured I'd pipe in as a vegan of 6 years.

diamondgeog
12-18-2013, 12:09 AM
Just starting to read Salt Sugar Fat on good recommendations. Suzanne and others good posts. I agree finding out what works for you.

I am also pro lots of non starchy veggies and am eating more and more. I don't stay away because they have carbs.

I started to succeed when I gave up whole wheat bread and pasta. I feel from my lifetime of experiences I was very carb sensitive. Whole wheat, white it didn't matter: they got me more hungry and tired. Ironically now my body can process grain carbs better but it could not then.

Cutting back on bread, pasta, junk food, potatoes, helped me get hunger under control and upped my energy.

diamondgeog
12-19-2013, 02:19 PM
Wanted to add a little about the 'complexity' issue. Every researcher at every university that has or will exist always has to reduce the complexity of every issue to say anything about anything.

My ability for typing these words, and all the underlying mechanisms, is probably infinitely more complex than any researcher or team will ever be able to understand fully.

I know I am being redundant, but even without reading Wheat Belly and Grain Brain I knew carbs were a big problem for me. Especially the type of carbs I was eating

I had a huge belly and I almost never drink alcohol. The snacking and fast food wasn't only bad during that particular meal but was leading me to have massive hunger and be very lethargic. Going to whole grain bread and pasta did not seem to help.

Was my particular situation way more complex than getting a ton of 'bad carbs' and whole grain? Yes. Was targeting them probably and at worse arguably one of the best things I, me, myself could have done? Yes.

I think we forget on 3FC with all the amazing success stories that a large amount of people do not succeed. My going down 55 lbs and counting since May 1 is FANTASTIC. And my blood work is better, and I am clearer and stronger, and a runner now.

I am not going to become a zombie, and I know no one here posting is advocating this, until the full complexity of why I was 285 was worked out.

If you want to boil it down to eating better and moving more: well alright. That is what I tell people when they ask. Then I tell them more if they want it.

With my particular diet and habits my worse 'sins' seemed to be all carb related. So targeting them made the most sense. And it is working. Other people have other things ('sins') they are doing wrong in their diet, and different metabolisms, genetics, etc.

But I know tens of millions of Americans had the same diet faults I did. That is why the low carb discussion and books that bring it up are most important contributions to health, happiness, and well-being of Americans and people around the world IMO. Do they have faults? Of course. Are they important? Yes. Are they helping people? Yes.