Although I haven't read the book I listened to the interview, read the NYT article he started with, and read some interviews with him. I don't think he's jumping on a bandwagon - he has been exploring issues to do with the nature of research in other areas as well, and for the past five years or so he has been obssessively researching the fat vs. carbs issue and the science behind it What he found is that there simply isn't "good" science behind a lot of the statements we often make "A calorie is a calorie" is one of those statements. I always believed that - now, reading what he has to say about the effect on hormones and insulin of carbs vs. fat, I'm not so sure.
What I do know is that in the four years I've been losing / maintaining, my diet has changed drastically. It's been in increments. Rather than trying to do any specific diet I've just experimented with what works for me. Now I'm at a healthy weight and I'm playing with makes me FEEL good, as opposed to looking good, and what I'm learning is that if I eat lots of raw foods, lots of veggies, some fruits, lots of nuts & beans & plain yogurt - I FEEL great. And I learned that this was also the easiest way for me to maintain - I don't eat pasta, bread, cookies, crackers, sweets, rice, etc - not because someone told me not to but because by painful trial & error I've learned I feel better if I don't, and it's easy to maintain
My bottom line is, read everything, even if it doesn't fit with my preconceived notions and accepted truths, figure out what the agendas are (if any), and experiment personally to find out what works for me.
I would be one of the "Good Calories, Bad Calories" detractors Maya.
Calories are calories, there are no good ones or bad ones. Carbs don't make people fat. Eating more calories than your body can burn makes people fat.
This guy is just hopping on the low-carb bandwagon to make a buck, because people like to hear the magic answer. "Oh, if I stop eating white bread and pasta, I'll be thin again." It's never that simple.
Not to say there aren't any valid points in what you posted--there is a social stigma placed on fat people. But with all sorts of people out there selling their diet plans and books, there's a lot of misinformation and "philosophy" floating around.
Maya, in one respect you have hit the nail on the head by saying that eating more calories than your body can burn is what makes you fat. BUT your endocrine system is what controls HOW FAST those calories are burned, what type of fat is manufactured, and where it is deposited. And the types of foods you consume have a significant effect on how your endocrine system functions.
There have been several long-term studies on how low-fat diets affect weight. The most famous is the 8-year nurses health study. Here are the results of that study, excerpted from the Harvard School of Public Health website:
Quote:
The results, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, showed no benefits for a low-fat diet. Women assigned to this eating strategy did not appear to gain protection against breast cancer,(1) colorectal cancer,(2) or cardiovascular disease.(3) And after eight years, their weights were generally the same as those of women following their usual diets.
So he is not completely off the wall in what he is saying about low fat/high carb diets; there is respectable scientific research to support it.
There have been several long-term studies on how low-fat diets affect weight. The most famous is the 8-year nurses health study. Here are the results of that study, excerpted from the Harvard School of Public Health website:
So he is not completely off the wall in what he is saying about low fat/high carb diets; there is respectable scientific research to support it.
for some reason the quote doesn't include your quote but I believe the 8 year nurses study references a 30% fat diet as being low fat. I don't know but that doesn't sound low fat to me.
nelie, I also found the reference to "30% fat or less" as being "low fat" for the purposes of that study.
I also read that in that same study, a lower rate of cardiovascular disease was found among women with the highest protein intake, compared to those with the lowest protein intake.
Altari, I hope you're not even more confused now! I think our topic has started to wander a bit...
A book I highly recommend is The China Study, it is very interesting and actually references the Nurses Health study and some of the flaws with the study.
Honestly though, I tried to read a lot about dietary changes and health and then make up my own mind. I've also played with my own diet for the past few years and have found what makes me feel good, what helps me lose weight and what is maintainable for the future.
As long as there is good $$$$ involved there will be studies and books. I think for most folks, unless there are medical issues, it comes down to smart choices ~ calories in~calories out ~ exercise ~ BALANCE
My husband does wonderfully on a low-carb diet. He can eat as many calories as he wants as long as he keeps the carbs low and he loses weight. I, on the other hand, get so mean and crabby if I dont have carbs that I just can't stick to that way of eating. I don't believe that one way works for everyone. It just can't. We are all different. You have to find what works for you. Try differnet things. Figure out what you feel good with while meeting your goals.
There is no end to the debate about "good calories" and "bad calories". I pretty much have a handle on both sides of the debate. But the only thing that just keeps sticking in the back of my mind about this debate concerns, of all things, the movie "The Grapes of Wrath", starring Henry Fonda. Why this sticks in my mind is because the movie was about an impoverished starving family in the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. Yet the lead female character, the mother, was played by a very heavy woman. When the director was asked WHY he would cast a very heavy woman in the role of the starving family matriarch, he said that "If you are poor, all you have to eat are potatoes. This is why she would have been fat - she would have given the meat and vegetables to her family and eaten the left-overs". Now, this is from the late 1930s. I found this interesting, because the author of "good calories, bad calories" argues that common knowledge, from years ago, your "gramma's wisdom" if you will, said that if you overate carbs you would gain weight. And that the total calories in wouldn't necessarily be the deciding factor.
I mention this NOT as "scientific proof", but simply as a comment that really stuck in my mind. A starving woman portrayed by an extremely overweight woman because all she had to eat were potatoes....
Maya
Uhh I don't really get the eating only potatoes would make you fat, obviously it'd make you malnourished but an average woman would have to eat about 17 potatoes per day (approximately 6 lbs of potatoes) to gain weight and even then, it'd be a slow gain. I think if momma was fat, she was eating a lot more than potatoes.
I think if I ate about 5 (maybe 7) potatoes per day, I'd be pretty darn full.
Anyway, there are carbs that will make you gain weight, such as sugar because it lacks fiber and is very calorically dense.
I believe, although I don't know that there have been any studies to show this, that poorer people who are malnourished may be obese because they are starving for enough protein. They may be overeating starchy foods, fats, and inexpensive filler foods in an effort to fill their protein hunger. Foods high in protein are generally more expensive to buy. And you have to eat an awful lot of beans and rice to get as much protein as in a can of tuna. But as I say, this is only my impression--I have no data.
I think the theory is as follows: carbs create an insulin response. The insulin response is responsible for the creation of fat. If you eat a meal high in carbs, those carbs that you do not immediately use (metabolic energy, glycogen replenishment, etc.) will be stored as fat. SO, I think the theory is that if you eat carbs in an unbalanced fashion, the excess carbs will be stored as fat. Since fat is the body's least favorite fuel source, fat deposited will be used last. Hence, a diet very high in carbs results in fat storage, which is used by the body at the last possible moment.
The theory behind ketogenic diets is that there are few carbs and little glycogen for the body to use. Fat is accordingly burned (along with muscle tissue) resulting in the formation of ketone bodies. Result -- a diet of all potatoes means fat deposits. High protein means fat useage. And I didn't say that "gramma's logic" was scientific. I'm just saying that, like the author of the book, sometimes there is truth to "gramma's wisdom".
From a personal perspective, I fell into the trap of Susan Powter's diet in the mid-90s. She advocated a high-carb, low-fat diet. I love pasta. I kept my calories down to 1800 per day and exercised 1 hour vigorously and religiously three times a week with a certified personal trainer.. SO, in keeping with the principle that high carb was good, I ate around (plus or minus 100) 1800 calories a day of pasta and tomato sauce. I kept a daily food log, and had it checked by my certified trainer for calorie consumption. I never had such FUN! I LOVED it! And after three months, I had gained 20lbs. While on a DIET. While under the supervision of a certified personal trainer, who advocated the Susan Powter method. Who I immediately fired!!!!
I'm just saying...
Maya
The impoverished also lack vegetables and fruit which provide nutrients and fiber. Although it isn't just the impoverished, it seems to be part of our american society.
I made lots of veggies for Thanksgiving and my fridge is stuffed with those veggies. The reason? My ILs don't really eat veggies unless I am around to prepare it for them and serve it to them.
I also grew up not eating much veggies but I ate a lot of meat growing up and I ate a lot of carbs. My family wasn't impoverished but we also weren't anywhere near middle class.
Also our society eats more meat than any other large culture (yes there are eskimos and other smaller cultures that do have a lot of meat as part of their diet) and we are the fattest ones around. Can you imagine going to a restaurant in any other country (I can't speak for Canada but I imagine they are similar to us in this respect) and being able to order a 24 oz steak? Or a 1 lb burger?
Maya,
There have been studies that show that have proven that it is truly calories in vs calories out, high carb vs low carb, if the calories are the same, the results are the same. One good thing about low carb diets though is that they limit the refined carbs which are really what cause the huge insulin response which causes hunger. If you eat a whole foods high carb diet, it is different than if you eat a processed high carb diet in that you will be hungrier and tend to eat more with processed foods.
Something also interesting although there have been studies on calories in vs calories out, in the book I read it was saying that Chinese people actually eat more calories on average than Americans but they are skinnier, even with the less active Chinese they are still skinnier. Part of the theory is that it takes more calories to convert carbs into fat than it takes to convert fat into fat and since Chinese eat a lot of carbs and not much animal protein, they burn more calories processing their food. I don't really care about the processing food aspect because I think it is just better to focus on calories but it is interesting.
I'd suggest you read the book. It talks at length about things exactly like the woman in the movie - eg, a lot of the current weight problem in the west is blamed on a rich diet, lots of fat, etc., but the poor are proportionately heavier, and they eat a lot more starchy things, because they're cheaper. But one thing I think is interesting is he also talks about something that probably hits close to home for a lot of people: often when obese people claim they're only eating a certain amount, and that amount seems too low to fit the "calories in, calories out" rule, and people assume they are secretly eating more or just not accurately judging what they eat - when in fact, it's often the case that those people really aren't eating all that much; they can be eating exactly the same number of calories as someone who is slim. Which begs the question, why does one person gain weight and the other person doesn't? So a lot of the stuff in the book is about hormones, insulin, metabolism. It does not say one diet fits all, it doesn't say low carb is for everyone. It raises a lot of really interesting points, and it does so by looking at pretty much all the science that's been done (or more to the point, not done). He spent five years writing this, interviewed more than 600 scientists & other experts. He is the only writer to have won the 3 Science in Society Journalism awards from the National Association of Science Writers. His last book was on cold fusion, so he's not trying to be a health guru or anything like that.
A lot of people are upset about this book and there's been some harsh criticism because it questions a lot of the things we believe to be true (including things I wholeheartedly believed but am now wondering about), but it also digs to find out where we got the ideas we have and why we should maybe question them ourselves. Given what a struggle the WLJ is for so many of us I think it's not a bad idea to have an open mind until you've read it for yourself. He doesn't say he has all the answers - I think he would be more likely to say, he has all the questions!
Anyway, it's really very interesting and I think a hopeful, positive book for people who are trying to get healthier.
Maya ~ I remember years ago, as a child about 10, asking my mom "why is everyone in that family so fat?"...she just said that they didn't have much money so they ate a lot of spaghetti...for years I thought anyone fat was not only poor...but ate a lot of spaghetti.
