5 ms·

Meta-study says too much carbohydrate, not fat, leads to obesity

49 points by scribu 13y ago

ghshephard 13y ago
As someone who has closely followed the literature (I scraped and reviewed pretty much all of ACJN) - I find it fascinating that nobody has gone to the effort of doing a large-scale controlled study on this topic. Seriously - how difficult would it be to just get a large population in a controlled environment for period of time (12-18 months), separate them into groups, and feed them pre-determined diets, and observe the results. I'm sure there are lots of institutional opportunities where we have large populations of people who would be happy to volunteer for this type of study.
- RobLach 13y ago
  Doing some personal research a while back revealed to me that diet studies in general have ridiculously low standards. The vast, vast majority of them are volunteer, self-journaled data based that would be laughed out of any other scientific context. Controlled group studies are almost entirely non-existent and are typically limited to very specific conditions and goals, such as diets for epileptics. I hope at some point we'll sit down and do a proper broad study on different diets where all meals are controlled for x amount of time and get a range of data that you could further divide and conquer and figure such a crucial part of our existence out.
- beagle3 13y ago
  "Controlled environment" would require that these people would not see their friends/family (because almost every social gathering these days features calorie intake in some way), not be able to go into a convenience store to get the paper, and other things. It's much harder than you'd think. A friend of mine is an MD who does weight management research. Apparently, people misreport their intakes by significant factors - either because they don't consciously remember, or because they try to make themselves feel better - but generally, you can't trust what people do when you are not watching, or describe what they did.
- DanBC 13y ago
  There are ethical considerations that would mean it could never happen. People don't self report accurately. > I'm sure there are lots of institutional opportunities where we have large populations of people who would be happy to volunteer for this type of study. Foxcon?
- gkelly 13y ago
  I think the work from http://nusi.org/ http://nusi.org/ could be promising.
zdean 13y ago
So I could eat 10,000 calories of fat per day and lose weight if I cut out the carbs? I doubt it. There seems to be a zero-sum mentality that will (maybe) never die off that if one food group is good others must be bad. As for me, I'll listen to Michael Pollan's advice: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
- dmm 13y ago
  10,000 calories of fat would be extremely filling.
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    3 pounds of butter. A liter of olive oil.
- truthlaidbear 13y ago
  Obviously that's not what they're saying. > Meat and fish rich in fat, along with nuts and olive oils, should form a large part of a healthy diet, while the consumption of pasta, potatoes, and white bread should be reduced. Key word: reduced.
- jonmb 13y ago
  To be fair, the article never says you can eat 10,000 calories and lose weight. I know a lot of people think low-fat = healthy, and that fat makes you fat, which isn't really the case. This article just seems to be confirming that "simple carbs" should be moderated, which is commonly suggested in health and fitness books.
  - zdean 13y ago
    Here are a couple of things the article says: An influential Swedish health organisation has recommended a diet that is low in carbohydrates but not low in fat for people who are overweight or obese or have diabetes. ... “...When all recent scientific studies are lined up, the result is indisputable: our deep seated fear of fat is completely unfounded. You don’t get fat from fatty foods,” Nyström said. Those are both pretty solid endorsements for eating A LOT of fat/fatty foods. If they meant "A diet consisting of a calorie count appropriate for your body size should have a higher proportion of fats to carbs to make your target weight loss more efficient." But they didn't. They simply said/implied 'don't eat carbs but don't worry about how much fat you take in'.
jrwren 13y ago
no shit. where the fuck have you been? SUGAR - THE BITTER TRUTH RTFM
gx3 13y ago
The Carbohydrate Hypothesis of Obesity: a Critical Examination: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h... Basically debunks the carbohydrate hypothesis: "I hope you can see by now that the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is not only incorrect on a number of levels, but it may even be backward. The reason why obesity and metabolism researchers don't typically subscribe to this idea is that it is contradicted by a large body of evidence from multiple fields. I understand that people like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom", but the fact is that obesity is a complex state and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses."
- js2 13y ago
  It's worth quoting the introduction to give context to that conclusion: "I'd like to begin by emphasizing that carbohydrate restriction has helped many people lose body fat and improve their metabolic health. Although it doesn't work for everyone, there is no doubt that carbohydrate restriction causes fat loss in many, perhaps even most obese people. For a subset of people, the results can be very impressive. I consider that to be a fact at this point, but that's not what I'll be discussing here. What I want to discuss is a hypothesis. It's the idea, championed by Gary Taubes, that carbohydrate (particularly refined carbohydrate) is the primary cause of common obesity due to its ability to elevate insulin, thereby causing increased fat storage in fat cells." Aside: if I only had time to follow one blog on nutrition, it would be Whole Health Source.
- mistermann 13y ago
  Wait, are you saying that carbs are or are not a prime cause of obesity?
- penrod 13y ago
  The proposition that carbohydrates cause obesity may be true even if it is not the case that insulin plays a primary role in that process as Taubes claims. Since it is only the latter proposition that Guyenet debunks, he makes an obvious logical error in claiming that the broader carbohydrate hypothesis has been refuted.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
fingerprinter 13y ago
When people ask me about this, I like to start off by telling them that of the three macronutrients, carbs, protein and fat, only carbs are non-essential. We literally can't live without fat and protein, but we would do just fine with out carbs. Most people don't know that carbs are not required to live. We've been sold a bill of goods on carbs and it's been hurting us for 2 decades. And further, there are certain people who should be no where near carbs. * Diabetics and pre-diabetics * cancer patients * the obese * people who don't workout Carbs aren't evil, they should just be used strategically. Namely, to gain weight. Bodybuilders and powerlifters have known this forever. To gain weight, eat everything but mostly carbs. To lose weight, keep protein high, fill the rest of your calories with fat and limit the carbs.
- saryant 13y ago
  I understand the reasoning for 1, 3 and 4 but why cancer patients?
  - jerf 13y ago
    As far as I know this is still some preliminary research, but there is some evidence that chronic high blood sugar can cause cancer to grow more rapidly than a steady and lower level of blood sugar. The working theory seems to be that because the cancer is growing more rapidly, it requires more energy. By feeding it (literally) a steady supply of higher blood sugar levels, you are allowing it to grow faster than it would otherwise. I believe this is still all only working theory at the moment, though, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole idea in general get walked back at some point (even if it does sound plausible). It's fairly new stuff, on the time scale of cancer studies.
  - fingerprinter 13y ago
    I can't find my original study link atm :/ some quick googling brought up this one, but it wasn't the study I was thinking about: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130605190158.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130605190158.ht... basic theory goes like this: the body doesn't need carbs to live, but cancer cells do. You are starving the cancer by not ingesting carbs. It seems the cancer cells lack the ability to derive energy from ketones and fatty acids, which is where humans would get the energy on a low-carb diet.
ajcarpy2005 13y ago
I have long suspected this to be the case. I have observed the association of obesity with "impoverished" Americans. Think about the kinds of food poor people buy. Macaroni, Ramen noodles, bread, soda, McDonald's (fries, bread), candy, cereal, etc. I also suspect that lower proportions of protein and nutrients play a role in carbs not being handled well by the body.
tgb 13y ago
Turns out it's food that leads to obesity: http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.html http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.htm...
- revelation 13y ago
  That is why this topic keeps attracting the terrible pseudo-science and cults, the overbearing media reporting.. we already know the simple principle by which you can lose weight. Turns out people are terrible at making changes in their routine. Instead of discussing some paleo nonsense or how carbs are evil, we should tell people to find a sport they enjoy and join a local club..
  - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    Physical exercise is largely irrelevant when it comes to losing weight. In the grand scheme of wellbeing it's a crucial element, but strictly for weight loss it's of little importance. It pretty much all comes down to properly adjusted eating habits.
    - revelation 13y ago
      If you want to go into theory, of course it's an overall inefficient way compared to just cutting your energy intake dramatically. But very few people can actually do that reliably, and even less can then transform that into properly adjusted eating habits. Exercise makes the process considerably easier.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    But that is also nonsense. The amount of time you have to spend exercising to spend significant calories is enormous. Far beyond what most people can allocate to the activity.
    - revelation 13y ago
      I think you are being overly dramatic on "enormous", but either way: it is not a zero sum game. If someone adds some activity into their weekly plan while simply maintaining their current eating habits, that is still an overall win. It is certainly a win for their health, because obviously eating "healthy stuff" does not actually make you perfectly healthy.
smtddr 13y ago
As someone who struggled to lose weight for about 1 year, but after that was able to defeat the extra 35+ pounds gained after marriage, I concur that the key thing I've almost completely removed from my diet was carbs & sugar. The weight disappeared. I purposely seek out whole milk, cream on top, and eat a bowl of Erewhon organic raisin bran[1] pretty much nightly. Simply avoid rice, bread, pastas & sugar(especially corn syrup). Now I don't wanna get into a big ol' argument about corn syrup vs. regular sugar, but I don't gain weight anywhere near as fast if I have an occasional japanese snack[2], versus a western candies such as the typical items at a 7-eleven[3]. Authentic Japanese snacks never seem to contain corn syrup, afaik. 1. http://www.wholeandnatural.com/catalog/Erewhon%20Organic%20Raisin%20Bran.jpg http://www.wholeandnatural.com/catalog/Erewhon%20Organic%20R... 2. https://www.localresearch.com/site_media/media/uploads/img/2010/Aug/17/DSC_0812.JPG https://www.localresearch.com/site_media/media/uploads/img/2... 3. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2011/02/08/1133928.jpg http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2011/02...
xacto75 13y ago
It's no coincidence that the modern Western diet is based on carbohydrates and hydrogenated oils. While an individual can choose to eat a high fat, low carbohydrate diet, our entire society cannot. This is a problem of scale. Our politicians made a deal with the agri-business devil to ensure (most) everyone is fed relatively cheaply. The toll for this deal is that some people end up fat and sick. I'm convinced this is known and understood; nothing will be done about it. It's left to the individual to adjust their lifestyle to suit their biology.
rayiner 13y ago
This stuff gets a little conspiracy theorist. I think the most basic problem is that carbs are cheap and it's easy to eat a lot of them because they're not filling. Losing weight is about calories in versus calories out, but calories in is about hunger management. Where I get breakfast, they sell these pretzels. 300 calories for something that'll leave you feeling hungry immediately. Meanwhile a small container of 2% Greek yogurt will fill you up till lunch for half the calories. My favorite lunch is a salad at chipotle: lettuce, chicken guacamole, cheese. At 450 calories, it's ridiculously filling and has about as many calories as a small sandwich that'll leave you hungry by the afternoon. Or a twelve piece nuggets at chick fil a. 400 calories for a tasty lunch that is so filling it's even a bit hard to eat in a sitting. But have a cup of coffee and a scone at Starbucks? Same number of calories as the twelve piece nuggets, except people don't feel like fat asses having that before going home for dinner. If you have trouble losing weight because you can't stay on the wagon, at least try a low carb diet. Realize that a bagel at 200 calories = 5-7 strips of bacon and the latter will fill you up and the former won't. Also eat lots of vegetables to add volume with low calories. If you have a sweet tooth, put a teaspoon of sugar in some FAGE. It's only 15 extra calories.
- zdean 13y ago
  I agree. I saw this recent piece on Doritos and was amazed at how much attention goes into EVERY sensory experience you have with the chip to maximize your intake (ie, calories consumed): http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/01/dining/nacho-graphic.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/01/dining/nacho-g...
- encoderer 13y ago
  Not disagreeing with anything you say, but I generally eat a 100% carbs lunch and also feel full and not hungry later. Usually it's 2 apples or 1 apple and another serving of fruit, and a cup of tea with no refined sugar. (Usually a bit of honey). I feel like all the simple answers in nutrition are BS and the only short answer is "it's complex." But I definitely do agree with the calorie-is-a-calorie line of thought. Gaining weight is an I/O issue.
  - 13y ago
tmikaeld 13y ago
There seems to be a misconception about LCHF, it means LOW CARB not NO CARB. I've been on the diet since March and lost 10KG and is now stable on 67KG weight and i'm 174cm long. I eat about 5% carbs each day, most from nutritious sallads, vegetables and berries. And i have NEVER been healthier in my life, even my doctor confirms this.

49 points by scribu 13y ago

As someone who has closely followed the literature (I scraped and reviewed pretty much all of ACJN) - I find it fascinating that nobody has gone to the effort of doing a large-scale controlled study on this topic. Seriously - how difficult would it be to just get a large population in a controlled environment for period of time (12-18 months), separate them into groups, and feed them pre-determined diets, and observe the results. I'm sure there are lots of institutional opportunities where we have large populations of people who would be happy to volunteer for this type of study.

RobLach 13y ago
Doing some personal research a while back revealed to me that diet studies in general have ridiculously low standards. The vast, vast majority of them are volunteer, self-journaled data based that would be laughed out of any other scientific context. Controlled group studies are almost entirely non-existent and are typically limited to very specific conditions and goals, such as diets for epileptics. I hope at some point we'll sit down and do a proper broad study on different diets where all meals are controlled for x amount of time and get a range of data that you could further divide and conquer and figure such a crucial part of our existence out.
beagle3 13y ago
"Controlled environment" would require that these people would not see their friends/family (because almost every social gathering these days features calorie intake in some way), not be able to go into a convenience store to get the paper, and other things. It's much harder than you'd think. A friend of mine is an MD who does weight management research. Apparently, people misreport their intakes by significant factors - either because they don't consciously remember, or because they try to make themselves feel better - but generally, you can't trust what people do when you are not watching, or describe what they did.
DanBC 13y ago
There are ethical considerations that would mean it could never happen. People don't self report accurately. > I'm sure there are lots of institutional opportunities where we have large populations of people who would be happy to volunteer for this type of study. Foxcon?
gkelly 13y ago
I think the work from http://nusi.org/ http://nusi.org/ could be promising.

zdean 13y ago

So I could eat 10,000 calories of fat per day and lose weight if I cut out the carbs? I doubt it. There seems to be a zero-sum mentality that will (maybe) never die off that if one food group is good others must be bad. As for me, I'll listen to Michael Pollan's advice: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

dmm 13y ago
10,000 calories of fat would be extremely filling.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  3 pounds of butter. A liter of olive oil.
truthlaidbear 13y ago
Obviously that's not what they're saying. > Meat and fish rich in fat, along with nuts and olive oils, should form a large part of a healthy diet, while the consumption of pasta, potatoes, and white bread should be reduced. Key word: reduced.
jonmb 13y ago
To be fair, the article never says you can eat 10,000 calories and lose weight. I know a lot of people think low-fat = healthy, and that fat makes you fat, which isn't really the case. This article just seems to be confirming that "simple carbs" should be moderated, which is commonly suggested in health and fitness books.
- zdean 13y ago
  Here are a couple of things the article says: An influential Swedish health organisation has recommended a diet that is low in carbohydrates but not low in fat for people who are overweight or obese or have diabetes. ... “...When all recent scientific studies are lined up, the result is indisputable: our deep seated fear of fat is completely unfounded. You don’t get fat from fatty foods,” Nyström said. Those are both pretty solid endorsements for eating A LOT of fat/fatty foods. If they meant "A diet consisting of a calorie count appropriate for your body size should have a higher proportion of fats to carbs to make your target weight loss more efficient." But they didn't. They simply said/implied 'don't eat carbs but don't worry about how much fat you take in'.

jrwren 13y ago

no shit. where the fuck have you been? SUGAR - THE BITTER TRUTH RTFM

gx3 13y ago

The Carbohydrate Hypothesis of Obesity: a Critical Examination: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h... Basically debunks the carbohydrate hypothesis: "I hope you can see by now that the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is not only incorrect on a number of levels, but it may even be backward. The reason why obesity and metabolism researchers don't typically subscribe to this idea is that it is contradicted by a large body of evidence from multiple fields. I understand that people like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom", but the fact is that obesity is a complex state and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses."

js2 13y ago
It's worth quoting the introduction to give context to that conclusion: "I'd like to begin by emphasizing that carbohydrate restriction has helped many people lose body fat and improve their metabolic health. Although it doesn't work for everyone, there is no doubt that carbohydrate restriction causes fat loss in many, perhaps even most obese people. For a subset of people, the results can be very impressive. I consider that to be a fact at this point, but that's not what I'll be discussing here. What I want to discuss is a hypothesis. It's the idea, championed by Gary Taubes, that carbohydrate (particularly refined carbohydrate) is the primary cause of common obesity due to its ability to elevate insulin, thereby causing increased fat storage in fat cells." Aside: if I only had time to follow one blog on nutrition, it would be Whole Health Source.
mistermann 13y ago
Wait, are you saying that carbs are or are not a prime cause of obesity?
penrod 13y ago
The proposition that carbohydrates cause obesity may be true even if it is not the case that insulin plays a primary role in that process as Taubes claims. Since it is only the latter proposition that Guyenet debunks, he makes an obvious logical error in claiming that the broader carbohydrate hypothesis has been refuted.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

fingerprinter 13y ago

When people ask me about this, I like to start off by telling them that of the three macronutrients, carbs, protein and fat, only carbs are non-essential. We literally can't live without fat and protein, but we would do just fine with out carbs. Most people don't know that carbs are not required to live. We've been sold a bill of goods on carbs and it's been hurting us for 2 decades. And further, there are certain people who should be no where near carbs. * Diabetics and pre-diabetics * cancer patients * the obese * people who don't workout Carbs aren't evil, they should just be used strategically. Namely, to gain weight. Bodybuilders and powerlifters have known this forever. To gain weight, eat everything but mostly carbs. To lose weight, keep protein high, fill the rest of your calories with fat and limit the carbs.

saryant 13y ago
I understand the reasoning for 1, 3 and 4 but why cancer patients?
- jerf 13y ago
  As far as I know this is still some preliminary research, but there is some evidence that chronic high blood sugar can cause cancer to grow more rapidly than a steady and lower level of blood sugar. The working theory seems to be that because the cancer is growing more rapidly, it requires more energy. By feeding it (literally) a steady supply of higher blood sugar levels, you are allowing it to grow faster than it would otherwise. I believe this is still all only working theory at the moment, though, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole idea in general get walked back at some point (even if it does sound plausible). It's fairly new stuff, on the time scale of cancer studies.
- fingerprinter 13y ago
  I can't find my original study link atm :/ some quick googling brought up this one, but it wasn't the study I was thinking about: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130605190158.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130605190158.ht... basic theory goes like this: the body doesn't need carbs to live, but cancer cells do. You are starving the cancer by not ingesting carbs. It seems the cancer cells lack the ability to derive energy from ketones and fatty acids, which is where humans would get the energy on a low-carb diet.

ajcarpy2005 13y ago

I have long suspected this to be the case. I have observed the association of obesity with "impoverished" Americans. Think about the kinds of food poor people buy. Macaroni, Ramen noodles, bread, soda, McDonald's (fries, bread), candy, cereal, etc. I also suspect that lower proportions of protein and nutrients play a role in carbs not being handled well by the body.

tgb 13y ago

Turns out it's food that leads to obesity: http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.html http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.htm...

revelation 13y ago
That is why this topic keeps attracting the terrible pseudo-science and cults, the overbearing media reporting.. we already know the simple principle by which you can lose weight. Turns out people are terrible at making changes in their routine. Instead of discussing some paleo nonsense or how carbs are evil, we should tell people to find a sport they enjoy and join a local club..
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  Physical exercise is largely irrelevant when it comes to losing weight. In the grand scheme of wellbeing it's a crucial element, but strictly for weight loss it's of little importance. It pretty much all comes down to properly adjusted eating habits.
  - revelation 13y ago
    If you want to go into theory, of course it's an overall inefficient way compared to just cutting your energy intake dramatically. But very few people can actually do that reliably, and even less can then transform that into properly adjusted eating habits. Exercise makes the process considerably easier.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  But that is also nonsense. The amount of time you have to spend exercising to spend significant calories is enormous. Far beyond what most people can allocate to the activity.
  - revelation 13y ago
    I think you are being overly dramatic on "enormous", but either way: it is not a zero sum game. If someone adds some activity into their weekly plan while simply maintaining their current eating habits, that is still an overall win. It is certainly a win for their health, because obviously eating "healthy stuff" does not actually make you perfectly healthy.

smtddr 13y ago

As someone who struggled to lose weight for about 1 year, but after that was able to defeat the extra 35+ pounds gained after marriage, I concur that the key thing I've almost completely removed from my diet was carbs & sugar. The weight disappeared. I purposely seek out whole milk, cream on top, and eat a bowl of Erewhon organic raisin bran[1] pretty much nightly. Simply avoid rice, bread, pastas & sugar(especially corn syrup). Now I don't wanna get into a big ol' argument about corn syrup vs. regular sugar, but I don't gain weight anywhere near as fast if I have an occasional japanese snack[2], versus a western candies such as the typical items at a 7-eleven[3]. Authentic Japanese snacks never seem to contain corn syrup, afaik. 1. http://www.wholeandnatural.com/catalog/Erewhon%20Organic%20Raisin%20Bran.jpg http://www.wholeandnatural.com/catalog/Erewhon%20Organic%20R... 2. https://www.localresearch.com/site_media/media/uploads/img/2010/Aug/17/DSC_0812.JPG https://www.localresearch.com/site_media/media/uploads/img/2... 3. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2011/02/08/1133928.jpg http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2011/02...

xacto75 13y ago

It's no coincidence that the modern Western diet is based on carbohydrates and hydrogenated oils. While an individual can choose to eat a high fat, low carbohydrate diet, our entire society cannot. This is a problem of scale. Our politicians made a deal with the agri-business devil to ensure (most) everyone is fed relatively cheaply. The toll for this deal is that some people end up fat and sick. I'm convinced this is known and understood; nothing will be done about it. It's left to the individual to adjust their lifestyle to suit their biology.

rayiner 13y ago

This stuff gets a little conspiracy theorist. I think the most basic problem is that carbs are cheap and it's easy to eat a lot of them because they're not filling. Losing weight is about calories in versus calories out, but calories in is about hunger management. Where I get breakfast, they sell these pretzels. 300 calories for something that'll leave you feeling hungry immediately. Meanwhile a small container of 2% Greek yogurt will fill you up till lunch for half the calories. My favorite lunch is a salad at chipotle: lettuce, chicken guacamole, cheese. At 450 calories, it's ridiculously filling and has about as many calories as a small sandwich that'll leave you hungry by the afternoon. Or a twelve piece nuggets at chick fil a. 400 calories for a tasty lunch that is so filling it's even a bit hard to eat in a sitting. But have a cup of coffee and a scone at Starbucks? Same number of calories as the twelve piece nuggets, except people don't feel like fat asses having that before going home for dinner. If you have trouble losing weight because you can't stay on the wagon, at least try a low carb diet. Realize that a bagel at 200 calories = 5-7 strips of bacon and the latter will fill you up and the former won't. Also eat lots of vegetables to add volume with low calories. If you have a sweet tooth, put a teaspoon of sugar in some FAGE. It's only 15 extra calories.

zdean 13y ago
I agree. I saw this recent piece on Doritos and was amazed at how much attention goes into EVERY sensory experience you have with the chip to maximize your intake (ie, calories consumed): http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/01/dining/nacho-graphic.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/01/dining/nacho-g...
encoderer 13y ago
Not disagreeing with anything you say, but I generally eat a 100% carbs lunch and also feel full and not hungry later. Usually it's 2 apples or 1 apple and another serving of fruit, and a cup of tea with no refined sugar. (Usually a bit of honey). I feel like all the simple answers in nutrition are BS and the only short answer is "it's complex." But I definitely do agree with the calorie-is-a-calorie line of thought. Gaining weight is an I/O issue.
- 13y ago

tmikaeld 13y ago

There seems to be a misconception about LCHF, it means LOW CARB not NO CARB. I've been on the diet since March and lost 10KG and is now stable on 67KG weight and i'm 174cm long. I eat about 5% carbs each day, most from nutritious sallads, vegetables and berries. And i have NEVER been healthier in my life, even my doctor confirms this.