I agree with everything you said. But I do think we could feed everyone a good low-car diet...if well the whole global economy were different. The real problem is the enormous discrepency in wealth. Somethng like 2 billion people live on under $5 a day. We have too much money in too few hands. That gums up nutrition a lot.

I also would have to look at the ecology more. One thing we use to do was mixed farming which had a ton of enviromental benefits. If you grass feed cows they produce manure that is used as fertilizer. If we went back to mixed farming, which agribusiness hates because they don't get to seel fertlizier maybe we could feed everyone on low carb? But I don't know.

It has been interesting on this journey though to think about money and food in just my experience in the US on a middle class income.

I can get a pound of grass fed organice beef for usually $8, sometimes less depending. That gives my family 4 burgers. It tastes awesome and we'd be hard pressed to go out and get the worse stuff (except for dollar value meal burgers) for that price. You can eat awesome at home often for less, sometimes way less, than you can eating junk out.

Yes, that's my highest. I am not sure if I process carb so well, I sometimes feel very tired after eating pasta, but to be honest that happens also with a little carb/high protein dinner. I suffer from IBS and feeling fatigued after meals is a symptom.

I think we are talking about two things. Sure, I totally believe the obesity epidemic is caused by too much sugar, mostly refined sugars like fructose, sucrose. I just watched the first episode of The Men Who Made Us Fat and I am totally on board with the thesis that sugar is "pure, white and deadly". Also, I have never eaten and Americanized diet. To my tastebuds, American chain food - a muffin a Starbuck's or a burger at McD - is way, way too sweet!

If fruits are balanced with proteins and healthy fats, if bread is unsweetened, I bet a diet with 45-55 % of carbs would work for many people, but perhaps not everybody. If carbs/sugars in fruits trigger hunger/hormonal imbalance/addiction centers in some persons, then by all means, they should stay away from carbs. I am glad you found something that works for you and the last thing in my mind is to steer you away from that.

What Aragon and Hu are comparing are two different low-calories diets. Some are low-carbs, some are low-fat ; everyone is losing weight at a comparable speed because each diet has the same calorific deficit. Protein are key for saving/even building muscles though and I have learned that I did not eat enough proteins before, so maybe daily or weekly targets need to be set.

But people don't in general eat the same number of calories on both kinds of diets. I started a thread in general chatter on The Men Who Made Us Fat: great doc.

So a scientist was trying to get rats fat, but he couldn't. Until he gave them American junk food. Then their whole system got messed up. They overeat became obese. Have to look holistically at what high carbs does: it begets more high carbs and lack of exercise often and often results in obesity in rats and people. Something about our phyisology including mind/body just doesn't do well, for many if not most people, with a diet with a lot of carbs.

But not everyone would have to eat low-carb. Those with a low insulin response, like our friend upthread, can stay on high carbs. It's just the obese that need to switch.

Not true, unless you only care about weight and not fitness and health. High carb diets have been implicated in diabetes (and there are thin diabetics) hypoglycemia, heart disease, food allergies, stunted growth, dental problems, osteoporosis, IBS, arthritis (osteo, rheumatoid, and psoriatic), fibromyalgia, asthma, thyroid disorders and other autoimmune issues.


Most people, not just those who are obese, would probably benefit from reducing carbs, but how low you need to go depends on a lot more variables than whether or not you're obese.

"Also, living longer isn't necessarily a goal of government. Especially with the age of retirement being less than half the outer limit of longevity."

In the UK this would lead to a collapse of the economy. About 36% of welfare payouts go on state pensions. It is crucial that people going on dying at the current rate.

Helena

Then we are doomed if word gets out.

I think the USA, the UK, Canada, Japan and other nations with very high standards of living could cope, with a few major lifestyle adjustments (fewer children, and less wasteful, more frugal lifestyles, better more efficient farming practices...), but the rest of the world would be screwed, especially those relying on grain exports from wealthier nations. We could probably afford to feed ourselves better and live longer, but we wouldn't be able to supply food to other countries. We probably wouldn't even be able to send the "unhealthy" grain crops, because we wouldn't have the space to grow it and feed ourselves the "better" stuff.

It would help if we switched to smaller, faster breeding and maturing meat animals rather than standard cattle (and I mean really small like chickens, ducks, guinea pig, rabbit.... nothing bigger than a pigmy goat or potbelly pig). Everyone might have to grow and raise some of their own food, such as sprouts and other plants that can be grown in little or no space with little or no skill.


It isn't that a healthier diet isn't possible for everyone EVENTUALLY, but radical immediate change would be disastrous. Unfortunately, most people tend to resist or postpone "small changes." Humans tend to prefer "revolutions" to gradual, planned improvements.