8 ms·

Why Eating Fat Doesn't Make You Fat: Sources

57 points by jaybol 15y ago

hackermom 15y ago
Insulin.
scoofy 15y ago
Whenever i read much of this anti-carb stuff, i'm always concerned about how different carbs affect the body. Taubes always blames the whole lot, but people like Lustig distinctly go after fructose. I get that carbohydrates probably affect the body in a negative light, but I certainly wish they would study sugars independently.
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  Lustig goes after fructose but points out that fructose and sugar are metabolically equivalent. I believe he does so because fructose is more prevalent in processed foods (cheaper, subsidized, and other policy-driven historical accidents behind this).
  - ender7 15y ago
    Slight correction: sucrose (table sugar) and fructose are not metabolically equivalent. There's an enzyme in your duodenum which cleaves the sucrose molecule into one fructose and one glucose molecule semi-instantly. In both cases, your body ends up with a bunch of fructose. However, if you're eating table sugar, only half of the resulting calories are from fructose; the rest are from glucose.
    - dredmorbius 15y ago
      "Fructose" in Lustig's case is HFCS. HFCS is (depending on the formulation) ~45% - 85% fructose, with the remainder being glucose, and a typical formulation being close enough to 50-50 that it's a wash. Sucrose is a bound molecule, HFCS is free fructose + glucose molecules. So, while there are some differences (and I suspect there actually are significant differences between HFCS and table sugar), for the most part, eating a lot of foods formulated with HFCS is very, very similar, metabolically, to eating a lot of foods formulated with table sugar.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  Indeed. Carbs are not the same just as fats are not all the same. If you spend your life eating crisco and sugar your body will be affected in much different ways than if you spend your life eating olive oil and whole wheat, even if the quantities are identical.
- dbbo 15y ago
  This is partially why the "glycemic index" is bogus.
- frankc 15y ago
  that's not quite true. He implicates sugar more than anything as well, and has come around to that more and more over time. His next book is going to be about sugar. Part of the thinking is that while fructose may be causing a lot of problems, the fructose/glucose combination may be especially bad.
TomGullen 15y ago
Excellent to see this, it's a western myth that eating fat makes you fat. It's carbs. Carbs are cheap, carbs are bad for you and carbs are often marketed as health food. We don't need carbs. We evolved eating meat and veg. Meat, veg and water is the perfect diet. It's hard to stick to that diet though as carbs are so highly accessible.
- eurleif 15y ago
  Vegetables are mostly carbohydrates, so I don't know how you can say we should eat vegetables but not carbohydrates.
  - PaulJoslin 15y ago
    Refined carbs / refined sugar seem to be the problem with most foods these days. With the fear of 'fats' many food producers replaced the 'fat' with refined sugars to add the flavour with less fat (on paper). - http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/sugar-problem/refined-sugar-the-sweetest-poison-of-all http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/sugar-problem/refined-sug... - http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/nutrition/a/fructosedangers.htm http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/nutrition/a/fructosedangers...
    - dbbo 15y ago
      "Sugar" isn't the problem. It's fructose. Hard on the liver, can't even be used by muscles.
      - natrius 15y ago
        That's only partially true, and would still be useless if it were totally true. When people say "sugar", they're referring to sucrose, which is half fructose. Even glucose on its own will spike your blood sugar, which will make it harder to burn fat.
        eurleif 15y ago
        Also, your body converts starch into glucose, so starch can spike your blood sugar the same way. Fiber makes your body absorb glucose more gradually, which is why it's important to eat starch and sugar as part of whole foods, rather than in refined form.
brianmwang 15y ago
It's ridiculous to claim that you can eat as much protein and fat as you desire and not gain weight.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  And? Is that the claim being made here? What's your point?
- nessus42 15y ago
  What's your evidence for this? I've definitely lost weight going on a low carbohydrate diet, and I ate as much protein and fat as I wanted. (I tried to keep the fats mostly "good fats".) Maybe if you don't eat any carbohydrates, you just don't end up wanting to eat as much.
  - brianmwang 15y ago
    I agree that satiety from your macronutrient breakdown is a huge factor here. But some go so far as to claim you can eat FAR beyond your daily caloric burn in protein and fat and still lose weight. I have yet to meet anyone who can credibly back up that statement.
    - frankc 15y ago
      Part of the point here is that you don't know you daily caloric burn. It's not even possible to measure the calories in the food you eat precisely enough so that you could actually maintain weight homeostasis by literally counting calories. And if you get it wrong by even 20 calories a day? In 20 years you will gain over 40 pounds, by the calories in/calories out way of thinking. Clearly there must be some homeostatic mechanism controlling the weight in humans and other animals in the same way that homeostatic mechanisms control your body temperature. The Taubes argument in a nutshell is that excess carb consumption, especially fructose because of how it causes fatty liver issues, throws that homeostasis out of whack.
  - hobin 15y ago
    Make sure you're not simply stocking up on proteins. This can cause you to lose a lot of water, leading you to believe you're losing 'weight'. You might be, but in this case unfortunately, water != fat. Though if you're just 'eating as much [as you want]', you're probably fine. Though, in all honesty, I don't care so much for special diets. Me, I prepare my own food and don't eat the refined crap, and I'm as healthy as a horse. My ancestors did not evolve to eat that crap.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
dbbo 15y ago
Technically, it is energetically easier to store dietary fat as adipose as opposed to carbohydrate. The problem most people have is that they eat enough carb to satisfy their daily energy demands, and the fat they've eaten will be stored. Keep in mind that almost all muscle tissue and the brain prefer glucose (which usually comes from starch) over anything else, although some vital organs run mainly on fat, particularly at night. Our digestive system is very efficient. The bottom line is this: if you eat more calories than you expend, you will gain weight.
- natrius 15y ago
  Your bottom line is true but not actionable, which makes it a poor bottom line. If you want to eat more calories than you expend, you should reduce your carbohydrate intake. The useful bottom line is the bottom line of the infographic.
  - b3b0p 15y ago
    I'm confused by your statements. Are you basically saying one can eat more energy than their body burns as long as they reduce carbohydrates? From my understanding, fats are the most easily stored as body fat of the 3 macronutrients. Carbs and protein offer a great TEF and satiety than fat.
    - jon914 15y ago
      The makeup of your diet, among other factors, determined how the body reacts to the extra calories and decides whether to store it more as fat and/or lean muscle mass.
    - natrius 15y ago
      Oops, I mistyped my comment. I meant fewer calories.
- hackinthebochs 15y ago
  The hidden assumption here is that your body puts forth the same amount of effort to store fats vs carbs. This isn't borne out by the evidence. Cells uptake nutrients in response to insulin. Your body produces insulin in much greater amounts in response to carbs vs fats. This is necessary: free floating glucose is toxic to certain organs. Fats on the other hand can exist in your bloodstream without any acute damage.
kstenerud 15y ago
sigh yet another chapter in "X is bad for you! No, wait, X is good for you! it's actually Y that's bad for you. No wait, it's actually Z!" After decades of this I've decided they're all full of shit until someone can come up with extraordinary evidence to the contrary.
- daed 15y ago
  I don't think there's been much change in this area, it's been "eat in moderation, eat a balanced diet and exercise" for as long as I can remember.
  - kstenerud 15y ago
    Yes, but what is "moderation"? What constitutes a "balanced diet"? They've been moving targets for as long as I can remember. Meanwhile we've gone through endless cycles of "cholesterol is bad", "cholesterol is good", "only bad cholesterol is bad", "sugar is bad", "fat is bad", "fat is good, but saturated fat is bad", "carbs are bad". Eggs have gone through two complete revolutions of being bad for you and good for you. And now the new pariahs include white bread, white rice, and potatoes. Madness.
    - daed 15y ago
      Here's the message I've been given, maybe it's changed without my noticing but I think it's remained consistent - balance means giving each variable in an equation similar weight. Eating only one or two food groups is not optimal for health. Moderation - not eating more calories than you burn throughout the day. edit - I agree with you about the ever rotating axis of nutritional evil. It's BS. I think part of the reason we go through it though is people ignoring the basic advice I mentioned earlier that's held for so long. Why eat broccoli when I can eat McDonalds? Exercise is hard. ETC
      - kstenerud 15y ago
        It's not just that; it's the temporal nature of what constitutes a balanced diet (i.e. what the variables are, and what amounts are "correct"). Here's a short history of the USDA Food Pyramid, for example: http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/usda-food-pyramid.html http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/usda-food-pyramid.htm... (note: this is from a site pushing the low-carb diet, and is suitably slanted in that direction, but is useful for illustrative purposes) And that's just in the USA. Every country has their own ideas on what is "balanced".
nymacro 15y ago
Carbohydrates are the most accessible source of energy for your body, but they aren't the only one. For those interested in the mechanics of how fat can be used as an energy source instead of carbohydrates I recommend looking up Ketosis. It is a huge misconception that "the more fat you eat the more fat you get." Simply having excess energy intake (from any source) will gain you weight -- although the energy requirements for body maintenance is different for everybody. Having a deficit will lose you weight. Of course it is a little more complex than this, but generalising like this makes it simpler to understand and follow. Personally I keep a moderately low carb diet (I eat most of my carbs before strenuous exercise) and eat high protein/fat. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis - Alternate infographic about drinking carbonated drinks: http://imgur.com/w6C0s http://imgur.com/w6C0s
r00fus 15y ago
Sand. Interestingly, I was recently on a diet that (along with some basic points system that reflected glycemic index/load goals) utilized some innocuous looking pills... which had, as a main ingredient, silica. These pills worked... when I ate them regularly, I ate less without effort. On reflection this makes sense... perhaps our overly-cleansed (and refined) diet lacks a very basic ingredient that our digestive tract had evolved to utilize (not unlike birds' gizzards) and is now lacking?
- hack_edu 15y ago
  This brings new levels of irony to the "DO NOT EAT" silica packages in various packaged foods.
- Tossrock 15y ago
  Wait... really? My instinctive reaction is that sand would not be good for your digestive system, but I guess I don't really know. Was (ahem) excretion an issue?
  - r00fus 15y ago
    Can't remember, it was a couple of years ago. I don't remember anything extraordinarily different other than I didn't eat as much.
- derleth 15y ago
  Cotton would have done much the same, or eating any other indigestible solid. You were filling yourself up (sending fullness signals to your brain based on stomach distention) without getting any calories from it. Paper would have worked as well.
Craiggybear 15y ago
We've known fat isn't fattening for years. Its nonsense.
pcurve 15y ago
East Asians who eat two bowls of rice everyday must be the fattest people in the world then. This article is so ridiculous.
- fhoxh 15y ago
  It's a common misconception that there are few overweight east Asians: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobes/2010/868573/tab1/ http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobes/2010/868573/tab1/ Further, much of the population of east Asia lives in poverty or near-poverty conditions. Their portion sizes are small (i.e., total daily carbohydrate intake is nowhere even remotely close to that of developed nations). In fact, half a billion Chinese are living on less than $2 / day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_Peoples_Republic_of_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_Peoples_Republic... Also, east Asians eat whole grain brown rice, not the fried, bleached, processed, white rice that Americans typically eat, which is largely devoid of nutrients and fiber. For far more detail, visit page 226 of Gary Taubes' 'Why we get fat' book.
roshanr 15y ago
While Fat may not make you fat, all fats are not alike and some fats may be responsible for heart disease and cancer while others may actually be beneficial. This post by Kurt Harris does a good job of explaining why lumping together all fats is not a good idea: http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/1/29/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-macronutrient-part-i-fats.html http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/1/29/there-is-no-s... (PS: Unfortunately, he doesn't cite studies, but with some googling you can find most of the studies). Obesity itself is a complex topic and blaming it all on carbohydrates seems too simplistic. Over at whole health source, Stephen Guyenet has written a series of articles on the current state of research on insulin resistance - http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-causes-insulin-resistance-part-i.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-causes-in... Worth a read if you're interested in this topic.
espeed 15y ago
This is the same thing UCSF Professor, Dr. Robert Lustig, says in his presentation, "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM). There is also a New York Times article on this entitled "Is Sugar Toxic?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...).
- derleth 15y ago
  > Is Sugar Toxic? When an article is written in this form, the answer is nearly always "no", as it is in this case. If sugar were toxic, nothing that eats fruit could survive.
  - ciupicri 15y ago
    According to that presentation sugar is toxic, but remember that the quantity matters, too. Alcohol is toxic as well, but a glass of wine won't kill anyone, whereas a barrel might put you in a coma.
  - espeed 15y ago
    As per the presentation, the fiber in whole fruits provides the "antidote" to the fructose.
drucken 15y ago
For those who have not seen it, I highly recommend the documentary "Fat Head (2009)". It covers a wide variety of these issues in great detail but in very entertaining way! Here's a Youtube link to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVEiYwFvKvU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVEiYwFvKvU

57 points by jaybol 15y ago

Insulin.

Whenever i read much of this anti-carb stuff, i'm always concerned about how different carbs affect the body. Taubes always blames the whole lot, but people like Lustig distinctly go after fructose. I get that carbohydrates probably affect the body in a negative light, but I certainly wish they would study sugars independently.

dredmorbius 15y ago
Lustig goes after fructose but points out that fructose and sugar are metabolically equivalent. I believe he does so because fructose is more prevalent in processed foods (cheaper, subsidized, and other policy-driven historical accidents behind this).
- ender7 15y ago
  Slight correction: sucrose (table sugar) and fructose are not metabolically equivalent. There's an enzyme in your duodenum which cleaves the sucrose molecule into one fructose and one glucose molecule semi-instantly. In both cases, your body ends up with a bunch of fructose. However, if you're eating table sugar, only half of the resulting calories are from fructose; the rest are from glucose.
  - dredmorbius 15y ago
    "Fructose" in Lustig's case is HFCS. HFCS is (depending on the formulation) ~45% - 85% fructose, with the remainder being glucose, and a typical formulation being close enough to 50-50 that it's a wash. Sucrose is a bound molecule, HFCS is free fructose + glucose molecules. So, while there are some differences (and I suspect there actually are significant differences between HFCS and table sugar), for the most part, eating a lot of foods formulated with HFCS is very, very similar, metabolically, to eating a lot of foods formulated with table sugar.
InclinedPlane 15y ago
Indeed. Carbs are not the same just as fats are not all the same. If you spend your life eating crisco and sugar your body will be affected in much different ways than if you spend your life eating olive oil and whole wheat, even if the quantities are identical.
dbbo 15y ago
This is partially why the "glycemic index" is bogus.
frankc 15y ago
that's not quite true. He implicates sugar more than anything as well, and has come around to that more and more over time. His next book is going to be about sugar. Part of the thinking is that while fructose may be causing a lot of problems, the fructose/glucose combination may be especially bad.

TomGullen 15y ago

Excellent to see this, it's a western myth that eating fat makes you fat. It's carbs. Carbs are cheap, carbs are bad for you and carbs are often marketed as health food. We don't need carbs. We evolved eating meat and veg. Meat, veg and water is the perfect diet. It's hard to stick to that diet though as carbs are so highly accessible.

eurleif 15y ago
Vegetables are mostly carbohydrates, so I don't know how you can say we should eat vegetables but not carbohydrates.
- PaulJoslin 15y ago
  Refined carbs / refined sugar seem to be the problem with most foods these days. With the fear of 'fats' many food producers replaced the 'fat' with refined sugars to add the flavour with less fat (on paper). - http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/sugar-problem/refined-sugar-the-sweetest-poison-of-all http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/sugar-problem/refined-sug... - http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/nutrition/a/fructosedangers.htm http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/nutrition/a/fructosedangers...
  - dbbo 15y ago
    "Sugar" isn't the problem. It's fructose. Hard on the liver, can't even be used by muscles.
    - natrius 15y ago
      That's only partially true, and would still be useless if it were totally true. When people say "sugar", they're referring to sucrose, which is half fructose. Even glucose on its own will spike your blood sugar, which will make it harder to burn fat.
      - eurleif 15y ago
        Also, your body converts starch into glucose, so starch can spike your blood sugar the same way. Fiber makes your body absorb glucose more gradually, which is why it's important to eat starch and sugar as part of whole foods, rather than in refined form.

brianmwang 15y ago

It's ridiculous to claim that you can eat as much protein and fat as you desire and not gain weight.

InclinedPlane 15y ago
And? Is that the claim being made here? What's your point?
nessus42 15y ago
What's your evidence for this? I've definitely lost weight going on a low carbohydrate diet, and I ate as much protein and fat as I wanted. (I tried to keep the fats mostly "good fats".) Maybe if you don't eat any carbohydrates, you just don't end up wanting to eat as much.
- brianmwang 15y ago
  I agree that satiety from your macronutrient breakdown is a huge factor here. But some go so far as to claim you can eat FAR beyond your daily caloric burn in protein and fat and still lose weight. I have yet to meet anyone who can credibly back up that statement.
  - frankc 15y ago
    Part of the point here is that you don't know you daily caloric burn. It's not even possible to measure the calories in the food you eat precisely enough so that you could actually maintain weight homeostasis by literally counting calories. And if you get it wrong by even 20 calories a day? In 20 years you will gain over 40 pounds, by the calories in/calories out way of thinking. Clearly there must be some homeostatic mechanism controlling the weight in humans and other animals in the same way that homeostatic mechanisms control your body temperature. The Taubes argument in a nutshell is that excess carb consumption, especially fructose because of how it causes fatty liver issues, throws that homeostasis out of whack.
- hobin 15y ago
  Make sure you're not simply stocking up on proteins. This can cause you to lose a lot of water, leading you to believe you're losing 'weight'. You might be, but in this case unfortunately, water != fat. Though if you're just 'eating as much [as you want]', you're probably fine. Though, in all honesty, I don't care so much for special diets. Me, I prepare my own food and don't eat the refined crap, and I'm as healthy as a horse. My ancestors did not evolve to eat that crap.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

dbbo 15y ago

Technically, it is energetically easier to store dietary fat as adipose as opposed to carbohydrate. The problem most people have is that they eat enough carb to satisfy their daily energy demands, and the fat they've eaten will be stored. Keep in mind that almost all muscle tissue and the brain prefer glucose (which usually comes from starch) over anything else, although some vital organs run mainly on fat, particularly at night. Our digestive system is very efficient. The bottom line is this: if you eat more calories than you expend, you will gain weight.

natrius 15y ago
Your bottom line is true but not actionable, which makes it a poor bottom line. If you want to eat more calories than you expend, you should reduce your carbohydrate intake. The useful bottom line is the bottom line of the infographic.
- b3b0p 15y ago
  I'm confused by your statements. Are you basically saying one can eat more energy than their body burns as long as they reduce carbohydrates? From my understanding, fats are the most easily stored as body fat of the 3 macronutrients. Carbs and protein offer a great TEF and satiety than fat.
  - jon914 15y ago
    The makeup of your diet, among other factors, determined how the body reacts to the extra calories and decides whether to store it more as fat and/or lean muscle mass.
  - natrius 15y ago
    Oops, I mistyped my comment. I meant fewer calories.
hackinthebochs 15y ago
The hidden assumption here is that your body puts forth the same amount of effort to store fats vs carbs. This isn't borne out by the evidence. Cells uptake nutrients in response to insulin. Your body produces insulin in much greater amounts in response to carbs vs fats. This is necessary: free floating glucose is toxic to certain organs. Fats on the other hand can exist in your bloodstream without any acute damage.

kstenerud 15y ago

sigh yet another chapter in "X is bad for you! No, wait, X is good for you! it's actually Y that's bad for you. No wait, it's actually Z!" After decades of this I've decided they're all full of shit until someone can come up with extraordinary evidence to the contrary.

daed 15y ago
I don't think there's been much change in this area, it's been "eat in moderation, eat a balanced diet and exercise" for as long as I can remember.
- kstenerud 15y ago
  Yes, but what is "moderation"? What constitutes a "balanced diet"? They've been moving targets for as long as I can remember. Meanwhile we've gone through endless cycles of "cholesterol is bad", "cholesterol is good", "only bad cholesterol is bad", "sugar is bad", "fat is bad", "fat is good, but saturated fat is bad", "carbs are bad". Eggs have gone through two complete revolutions of being bad for you and good for you. And now the new pariahs include white bread, white rice, and potatoes. Madness.
  - daed 15y ago
    Here's the message I've been given, maybe it's changed without my noticing but I think it's remained consistent - balance means giving each variable in an equation similar weight. Eating only one or two food groups is not optimal for health. Moderation - not eating more calories than you burn throughout the day. edit - I agree with you about the ever rotating axis of nutritional evil. It's BS. I think part of the reason we go through it though is people ignoring the basic advice I mentioned earlier that's held for so long. Why eat broccoli when I can eat McDonalds? Exercise is hard. ETC
    - kstenerud 15y ago
      It's not just that; it's the temporal nature of what constitutes a balanced diet (i.e. what the variables are, and what amounts are "correct"). Here's a short history of the USDA Food Pyramid, for example: http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/usda-food-pyramid.html http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/usda-food-pyramid.htm... (note: this is from a site pushing the low-carb diet, and is suitably slanted in that direction, but is useful for illustrative purposes) And that's just in the USA. Every country has their own ideas on what is "balanced".

nymacro 15y ago

Carbohydrates are the most accessible source of energy for your body, but they aren't the only one. For those interested in the mechanics of how fat can be used as an energy source instead of carbohydrates I recommend looking up Ketosis. It is a huge misconception that "the more fat you eat the more fat you get." Simply having excess energy intake (from any source) will gain you weight -- although the energy requirements for body maintenance is different for everybody. Having a deficit will lose you weight. Of course it is a little more complex than this, but generalising like this makes it simpler to understand and follow. Personally I keep a moderately low carb diet (I eat most of my carbs before strenuous exercise) and eat high protein/fat. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis - Alternate infographic about drinking carbonated drinks: http://imgur.com/w6C0s http://imgur.com/w6C0s

r00fus 15y ago

Sand. Interestingly, I was recently on a diet that (along with some basic points system that reflected glycemic index/load goals) utilized some innocuous looking pills... which had, as a main ingredient, silica. These pills worked... when I ate them regularly, I ate less without effort. On reflection this makes sense... perhaps our overly-cleansed (and refined) diet lacks a very basic ingredient that our digestive tract had evolved to utilize (not unlike birds' gizzards) and is now lacking?

hack_edu 15y ago
This brings new levels of irony to the "DO NOT EAT" silica packages in various packaged foods.
Tossrock 15y ago
Wait... really? My instinctive reaction is that sand would not be good for your digestive system, but I guess I don't really know. Was (ahem) excretion an issue?
- r00fus 15y ago
  Can't remember, it was a couple of years ago. I don't remember anything extraordinarily different other than I didn't eat as much.
derleth 15y ago
Cotton would have done much the same, or eating any other indigestible solid. You were filling yourself up (sending fullness signals to your brain based on stomach distention) without getting any calories from it. Paper would have worked as well.

Craiggybear 15y ago

We've known fat isn't fattening for years. Its nonsense.

pcurve 15y ago

East Asians who eat two bowls of rice everyday must be the fattest people in the world then. This article is so ridiculous.

fhoxh 15y ago
It's a common misconception that there are few overweight east Asians: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobes/2010/868573/tab1/ http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobes/2010/868573/tab1/ Further, much of the population of east Asia lives in poverty or near-poverty conditions. Their portion sizes are small (i.e., total daily carbohydrate intake is nowhere even remotely close to that of developed nations). In fact, half a billion Chinese are living on less than $2 / day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_Peoples_Republic_of_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_Peoples_Republic... Also, east Asians eat whole grain brown rice, not the fried, bleached, processed, white rice that Americans typically eat, which is largely devoid of nutrients and fiber. For far more detail, visit page 226 of Gary Taubes' 'Why we get fat' book.

roshanr 15y ago

While Fat may not make you fat, all fats are not alike and some fats may be responsible for heart disease and cancer while others may actually be beneficial. This post by Kurt Harris does a good job of explaining why lumping together all fats is not a good idea: http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/1/29/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-macronutrient-part-i-fats.html http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/1/29/there-is-no-s... (PS: Unfortunately, he doesn't cite studies, but with some googling you can find most of the studies). Obesity itself is a complex topic and blaming it all on carbohydrates seems too simplistic. Over at whole health source, Stephen Guyenet has written a series of articles on the current state of research on insulin resistance - http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-causes-insulin-resistance-part-i.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-causes-in... Worth a read if you're interested in this topic.

espeed 15y ago

This is the same thing UCSF Professor, Dr. Robert Lustig, says in his presentation, "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM). There is also a New York Times article on this entitled "Is Sugar Toxic?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...).

derleth 15y ago
> Is Sugar Toxic? When an article is written in this form, the answer is nearly always "no", as it is in this case. If sugar were toxic, nothing that eats fruit could survive.
- ciupicri 15y ago
  According to that presentation sugar is toxic, but remember that the quantity matters, too. Alcohol is toxic as well, but a glass of wine won't kill anyone, whereas a barrel might put you in a coma.
- espeed 15y ago
  As per the presentation, the fiber in whole fruits provides the "antidote" to the fructose.

drucken 15y ago

For those who have not seen it, I highly recommend the documentary "Fat Head (2009)". It covers a wide variety of these issues in great detail but in very entertaining way! Here's a Youtube link to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVEiYwFvKvU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVEiYwFvKvU