https://www.nsca.com/Videos/Conferen..._for_Athletes/

I like Aragon and especially this video.

I can also criticize explanations other than insulin and carb/sugar consumption as one of if not the main driving force behind obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. Along with vegetable oil use and the demonizing of saturated fats. Especially grass fed butter, lard, and tallow.

I think Prof Noakes, Taubes, Davis, etc. are on the right track. I kind of experimented on my own, learned more, feedback, etc. I am always open to new ideas. Remember low carb high fat is still the 'radical' idea now. So you have to be open minded to be on this path in the first place.

I've listened to Taubes, I don't follow him. I have more carbs and fruit than he suggests. I don't follow Paleo, I have dairy. But cutting out grains? Brilliant for my body, mind, health, and life. May be good for someone reading this also? Perhaps, perhaps not. Can't know until it is tried for couple of months or so. Could be the best thing ever.

I am thriving on no grains and low carb and high fat and that is more than good enough for me. And that infographic? More than a summary of Taubes work and FAO. I've lived that infographic.

At about 7:30 in that video Aragon could be talking directly from the infographic. The body's dominant energy storage is fat. But you can't access it with insulin around. How did my belly fat 'melt off'? Lowered carbs allowed my body to access it and burn it. Just lowering calories wouldn't have done it plus that is a moot point because if I still had grains 60% of calories from carbs I would have been too hungry to reduce calories even if I wanted to.

Regarding research. Taubes and others, their research and views threaten trillions in vested interests. Of course there is going to be pushback.

There is unfortunately a scientific industrial complex. Many researchers can't even get funding, might even have their careers destroyed if they don't support high carbs low fat and grains are good.

And Ancel Keys and T. Colin Campbell are some of the worst researchers around. I find their stuff awful at best. I wouldn't base anything I do on their work personally. Need to know who is funding work of people criticizing Taubes.

Excellent points, and thanks for the link. I must say it was refreshing to read an article that didn't bash carbs.

F.

It isn't about 'bashing' carbs or not. At least to me. It is about health and vitality to me. There is a reason there is a 'sea change' happening in views on carbs: demonizing fat, way beyond bashing, has been a disaster. For individuals, their loved ones, and health care costs.

I am far from alone in having my life transformed by a different relationship to carbs. It is saving not only my life but many millions who are having similar positives. BTW all for veggies. But other carbs were a disaster for my body and me. Bashing what they did to me.

It is ironic that low carb advocates have been talking about 'fat bashing' in diets for decades. So I guess welcome to the 'party' as views change.

The whole calorie is a calorie is so damaging to people in real life, to me. Yes many people DID, in fact, get overweight from eating grains. It stimulated their appetites and put them in fat storage mode. Radically different outcomes than had those calories come from fat. Just, to me, pointless to point to overall calories consumed. Why? Because for many you simply cannot control appetite and overall calorie intake without targeting carbs. Very simple thing to understand, for me, if you have been overweight with any kind of insulin resistance.

I am far from alone from having my appetite radically reduced by eliminating grains and lowering carbs overall. Flattering to think or assume it was massive willpower by me. The reality is, it was me working with chemistry, not fighting against it.

I'm not as impressed with this (unreferenced) article. At least two statements are patently false:

This key to keep in mind when trying to lose weight. Our bodies simply won't break down our fat stores when insulin is around.

[I guess I must be in violation of the laws of biochemistry. All my life I've been able to lose weight steadily on a 1,500 cal diet in which about 60% of my calories came from carbs, which promote the release of insulin.]

Type 2 diabetes is that much more dangerous [than Type 1] because the body will rarely respond to insulin treatment, meaning that drastic diet changes and exercise are the only ways to fight back.

[Oh really? What about the dozens of oral glucose-lowering medications available? Type 2 is less serious than Type 1 precisely because it doesn't depend on exogenous insulin in the earlier stages of the disease.]

F.

Well, one of the previous posters made the excellent point that people with no metabolic impairments need not (and maybe should not) follow the same type of diet as those with off-kilter biochemistry.

My metabolism appears to be fine, my lab values are fine, and by all indications I have a robust insulin response and process carbs just fine. I have no symptoms whatsoever from eating carbs except elevated mood. (In fact I have no physical symptoms of any kind, knock on wood. At 57 I feel exactly the same as I did at 20, with the exception that I need to go to the bathroom more.)

When I DON'T eat carbs, on the other hand, I feel very dissatisfied. I allow that the feeling may be partly psychological, but it's still very real.

Given the above, there isn't a lot of motivation for me to reduce my carb intake. I may try it one day out of simple curiosity, but that's about it.

F.

Freelance,

You like grains and carbs, fantastic. I am glad you are thriving on your diet. Great your approach works for you. It was killing me. Is my reality somehow less real or valid? Is lowering carbs somehow invalid for everyone because it is not necessary for you? Is it somehow 'wrong' that people find health and vigor lowering carbs and sometimes eliminating grains?

Is it less wrong when Aragon points this out instead of Taubes?

More and more studies coming out type 2 diabetes being not only controlled but 'reversed' on low carb.

BTW people eating carbs always feel that way when they first go off carbs. I did. I felt awful. My fat utilizing and burning metabolism was all but switched off. Now it is switched on. But until that happened, it takes at least a few days for most sometimes longer, yes you feel bad. Try lowering them for a month to two months. You can always go back. You might find the best health of your life. Or maybe not.

It's fantastic that you've found a WOE that works for you. Many of us (including me) have found that a low-carb approach that resembles your WOE more than the SAD is effective.

But many people have found an effective WOE in which carbs play a major role. Some of your absolute statements dismiss their success. Just as some of the conventional-wisdom ("everything in moderation") folks sometimes make absolute statements that dismiss the success of low-carb approaches for some people.

The science as to *why* low-carb approaches work well for *some* people is not yet completely settled. I think Taubes does a good job of discrediting the lipid hypothesis, but he doesn't do a great job of supporting his own insulin hypothesis.

But, honestly, aside from curiosity, the why is secondary to me. I, and I think most people, are more interested in black-box results, assuming that there is enough research to show that a given approach is safe. I think our collective experience shows that a high carb diet can be very effective for some people, but a low carb diet is very effective for some other people. There does not seem to be any evidence that all people need to follow a low carb approach (or vice versa). But people who have trouble managing their weight using conventional wisdom should at least consider a low carb approach.

Agreed. People need to find what works. Study after study is showing people generally do better on low carb with no calorie restriction compared to high carb with calorie restriction. But this may not apply to any one particular individual.

In other words eat as much as you want on low carb and people still do better. For weight loss and blood work. But for sure insulin sensitivity varies. I would just urge anyone who has struggled with weight to give an honest try to low carbs if they haven't yet.

To me that is two months. But others say try it for a month.

Part of that 'black box' to me is what carbs did to my appetite and my metabolism. A calorie is a calorie absolutely pointless to me. Not in theory, per se. Amount of calories still a very real import to me and anyone else. But in reality it was such bad, pointless advice to focus on.

Carbs kept me hungry. Pointless to restrict calories because on high carbs I was incapable of doing it. And my body held on to fat and accumulated it on high carbs.

Well, it looks like your thread got derailed a bit, Stopquitting. I hope you found some answers here.

Don't let the scale drive you batty. Perhaps a break from it entirely for a few weeks might help.

Pattience, really interesting article about serotonin, makes a lot of sense why depression and eating disorders often come hand in hand.

I've read more literature than I can recount on both sides of the high carb vs. low carb debate. I've come to the conclusion that human beings are omnivores that can find health and nourishment at a wide variety of different macronutrient ratio intakes. Both sides like to use the quote by Hippocrates: "Let food be thy medicine". I think that both are guilty of drawing too strong a connection between nutrition and disease and using scare tactics to get their points across. There are people who are afraid to eat a bowl of cereal because it will make them diabetic and people who won't eat meat for fear of a stroke.

America is one of the fattest countries around, and it's not because we eat *gasp* refined carbs or *gasp* meat and cheese. It's because we let scientists and doctors tell us how to eat instead of our own bodies. Americans are some of the most health and diet conscious people in the world. Eating breakfast when you aren't hungry for it because common knowledge says that it's the most important meal of the day is overeating and will lead to weight gain. There is a fundamental problem with nutrition science these days if two different factions can draw opposite conclusions based on cherry-picking data.

Look around the world- there are people happily eating their native diets without dropping dead. The French eat rich sauces and refined carbs. Asians eat white rice as a staple. These countries have lower incidences of the so-called "lifestyle" diseases of Americans. The biggest problem is that Americans overeat. We put away more calories than almost any other country. We need to stop the "eat more fats", or "eat more unrefined carbohydrates" endless debates and simply eat less food. EAT LESS FOOD. Put down the fork. Stop eating when you aren't hungry and I bet my last buck that most of these "lifestyle" diseases blamed on carbs or fat will go away.