The other day I needed some tortillas(yeah, I know, 'CARBS!', but not giving them up completely). And found every brand had soy in them, which I'm trying to avoid. So looked at shortening for making some and ALL the shortening has soy along with the other stuff. When what to my wandering eye did appear?

Lard.

Best tortillas I've ever made. Already used butter or bacon grease for a lot of cooking, so I guess this counts as the next step.

I don't trust anyone who labels foods healthy or unhealthy, unless they are known to be actually poisonous, without a whole lot of caveats about overall diet.

There's substantial evidence

Amy, I'm curious how substantial this evidence is. What does the "medical-nutrition community" have to say?

For example, I looked at this Mayo Clinic website, Low-carb diet: Can it help you lose weight? and it says...

Weight loss Most people can lose weight on almost any diet plan that restricts calories and what you can eat — at least in the short term. Over the long term, though, studies show that it's common to regain the lost weight, regardless of the diet plan you follow. Some studies also have shown that people who continued to follow certain low-carb diet plans for two years lost an average of nearly 9 pounds (4.1 kilograms) overall, which is similar to the amount of weight lost on higher carbohydrate diets. And it may not be just cutting carbs that leads to weight loss. Some studies show that you may shed some weight because you eat less on low-carb diets because the extra protein and fat keep you feeling full longer.

This does not appear to be a ringing endorsement for low-carb diets.

I've noticed a recurring theme with you. When you believe in something -- whether you had that belief originally and then found it supported by someone, or whether you began having a belief after being convinced by someone -- you treat it as fact and are extremely hostile to anyone who doesn't treat it as fact.

I don't know what the "medical-nutrition community" has to say about low-carb diets. I merely looked at one website and, as I said, they hardly gave it a ringing endorsement. But then, I shouldn't be surprised as I'm sure than any medical or nutrition professional who doesn't agree with you/Taubes/Eades is (a) ignorant or (b) part of a conspiracy to prevent the American public from learning the "truth."

It reminds me of the 9/11 "truthers", who feel that controlled demolition of the WTC towers is a fact (due to "substantial evidence") and that anyone who doesn't believe this is "in on the conspiracy."

It isn't PEOPLE I favor but the scientific evidence. The reason I promote the work of Eades and Taubes here with frequency is that I have vetted it over a number of years and seen that they are rigorous about being evidence-based.

OK, so they are "rigorous about being evidence-based." If that's the case, then I'd expect that most of the "medical-nutrition community" would be in agreement. That's what I originally asked you: what does the "medical-nutrition community" have to say?

You have a "true believer" mentality, and true believers always have knee-jerk hostility to anyone who questions their beliefs.

You waste my time

No, I don't do anything to your time. You freely choose to spend time responding to my comments. It's immature to make that choice and then complain that I "made" you do it.

"You have a "true believer" mentality, and true believers always have knee-jerk hostility to anyone who questions their beliefs." JD...

hm, and what would you describe as your own mentality? The status-quo apostle is no less a true believer...

They just believe everything is settled, because it's been that way for a while. Skeptical of only whatever threatens that Status-Quo.

Follow whatever diet you want, Who Cares? But at least be credulous enough to follow the money. There may be a reason that everything you buy likely has high fructose corn syrup in it... could it be that ADM Archer Daniels Midland has been greasing the palms, I mean contributing, to election campaigns for 50 years+?

Is there a reason that you can only have a coke with sugar in it is if you import it from mexico? Why do soft drinks all have High Fructose Corn Syrup?

Follow the money. I haven't checked in a long time but I think HFCS is even in your low fat Snak-Wells. Because soemhow the fat is the problem.

Farmers raise a lot of grain in this country. So is it any wonder that the food pyramid suggests that you eat way more grain than other things? IS it any wonder that it's the DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE that authored the guide?
So... where d'ya think that money is going?

Notice how none of this has anything to do with all that science stuff?

You'd think that every time they tweak the food guidelines with new knowledge, we would become more healthy. Americans have reduced their fat intake and protein intake, and in creased their carb intake. Also known as the Low-Fat High Carbohydrate diet. And so, we are all much better off, and astonishingly more healthy.

oh, wait. The narrative says one thing, and the reality isn't the same?

Nobody wants to admit that Americans ARE following the dietary guidelines... and getting fatter. It must be some kind of personal failing!

Or it could be that those guidelines are political documents tailored to constituencies. Bear in mind that the original guidelines from the turn of the 20th century suggested cutting back on GRAINS, SUGARS and STARCHES. At the time we ate dramatically more meat and fat.

Be Skeptical JD! But go where the road takes you, not just where you are comfortable.

Re: 2-year studies showing an average nine-pound weight loss, it's important to know who funded the study, what kind of subjects were studied (rodents, humans, etc.), how long the study lasted, how (or whether) food intake was measured, and what kind of study it was. From there, unless you know the bag of tricks used to manipulate nutritional studies, you're better off ignoring them.

One trick in a two-year low-carb study involved intention to treat. It's a fancy way of saying the researchers made up data. Here's Dr. Richard Feinman's take on a study using ITT (Feinman is a professor of biochemistry.)

http://rdfeinman.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/intention-to-treat-ii-foster-et-al-weight-and-metabolic-outcomes-after-2-years/

Besides, "Some studies show that you may shed some weight because you eat less on low-carb diets because the extra protein and fat keep you feeling full longer." Not sure how this is a bad thing.

You have a "true believer" mentality, and true believers always have knee-jerk hostility to anyone who questions their beliefs.

You are attacking the messenger, rather than refuting the message. A classic sign on a weak position.

What does the "medical-nutrition community" have to say?

Where is this community? Does it have an address?

Obviously, the mainstream nutritional experts do not agree or there would be no need for an alternative view. The views expressed on this site are that alternative viewpoint. Pointing out that mainstream experts disagree makes you Captain Obvious.

If everything was subject to being settled by "experts" from the various "communities", we could dispense with all further research and simply have the current experts post their collected wisdom inscribed on stone tables for us Proles to refer to if we have a question.

There is no settled science, only dogma can be settled. Science is a process of asking questions and taking the best answer we have now until a better answer comes along. Hard to do if question askers are badgered into silence by proponents of the status quo.

Apparently you did not listen to the show, because your questions were answered. The guests are researchers who study nutrition. Their studies come to a different conclusion than the current standard wisdom. They are not alone, others have published studies, reports, and books coming to a similar conclusion.

There is also the life experience which I and many others have had. If you use the high grain, low meat, low fat diet, you get fat and develop diabetes and host of other obesity related maladies. Those who go on the meat, vegetables, and fruit diet lose excess weight and their chronic conditions abate. This has been known since the 1860s. For those who have done this, it is a life altering experience so good they want to share it with their fellow man.

If you disagree, cool. Continuing to repeat your point after it has been replied to is trolling, and hopefully you will be given the boot if you continue.

"Amy, I'm curious how substantial this evidence is"

@JD: When I first heard about low-carb diets I was as skeptical as you. So I started digging into the actual science, in fact I spent literally days just reading and studying and researching the actual science behind it and was amazed at how substantial it is. Actual science, actual research, actual solid understanding of how our bodies process food, how and when our bodies burn fat, how and why low-carb diets work, and that they're not bad for you. I haven't managed to go permanently full low-carb but look and feel better and healthier since reducing carbs and reducing refined carbs in particular. This is really a case where the 'world' - even major dietary advice institutions - has gotten itself on the wrong bandwagon and it will take time to reverse.

On the contrary, I go to great pains to find people who are solid on science and then I use them as sources.

So if there are doctors or nutritionists who disagree with the theories of Eades & Taubes, they are not solid on science?

SwissArmyD: hm, and what would you describe as your own mentality? The status-quo apostle is no less a true believer...

I would agree that a "status-quo apostle" is also a true believer. However, I'm not a status-quo apostle here. I'm not saying Taubes & Eades are wrong in the way that Amy is saying they are right. I started off my comments here with a question: What does the "medical-nutrition community" have to say? But Amy, as a true believer, has that knee-jerk hostility I mentioned (and I should have said dismissiveness as well) to any questioning of her beliefs.

If the "medical-nutrition community" in not giving a big ol' bear hug to Taubes & Eades, then you seem to feel it's because they're bought and paid for by agribusiness. And perhaps that is the case. I'm cynical enough to accept that as a possibility. Or maybe they're just ignorant. Maybe Taubes & Eades are Galileo and the "medical-nutrition community" is the Catholic Church.

Besides, "Some studies show that you may shed some weight because you eat less on low-carb diets because the extra protein and fat keep you feeling full longer." Not sure how this is a bad thing.

I agree, Lori. I don't see how that would be a bad thing either. And I'm not seeing that Mayo Clinic bit as saying that a low-carb diet is bad (and neither did I say that.) I just said that I don't see it as a ringing endorsement. They seem to be saying that a low-carb diet can work but it's not any more effective than a higher-carb diet.

Amy, even if there were solid evidence (which there is not) that high carb diets are problematic, it is still a huge leap to label any non-poisonous food as unhealthy. Following that line of reasoning, we'd end up with a no-carb diet and anyone who argues that is good for you is a charlatan.

Again, what matters aren't specific foods, but your overall diet and the overwhelming evidence is that a balanced diet overall is the best diet.

In short, there is nothing unhealthy about mashed potatoes and anyone who eats stake 24x7 and nothing else is going to live a short life.

BTW, Taubes is NOT a scientist and has been shown to have quoted scientists and scientific studies out of context and for cherry picking his data. My take is that he had a good central idea and then became dogmatic about it. It's also clear that he suffers seriously from confirmation bias.

Old Guy: Where is this community? Does it have an address?

In an article on climate change, Science magazine says: "Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change."

You should write to them and ask them if this "scientific community" has an address.

Obviously, the mainstream nutritional experts do not agree or there would be no need for an alternative view.

Do the nutritional experts who don't agree with Taubes/Eades also have substantial evidence? Or is just Taubes/Eades who do?

If everything was subject to being settled by "experts" from the various "communities", we could dispense with all further research...

What do you think in this case? Should there be further research or has everything been settled by the substantial evidence of Taubes/Eades?

Science is a process of asking questions and taking the best answer we have now until a better answer comes along. Hard to do if question askers are badgered into silence by proponents of the status quo.

Are medical and nutritional professionals who disagree with Taubes/Eades trying to badger them into silence?

Their studies come to a different conclusion than the current standard wisdom. They are not alone, others have published studies, reports, and books coming to a similar conclusion.

I'm sure they're not alone. Perhaps their conclusions will end up becoming the new standard wisdom. Or perhaps not.

Ms. Alkon I want to thank you for discussing the work of Gary Taubes. I read about him on your website, bought the book Why We Get Fat, and started eating a very low carb diet.

In a few months I had lost 20 pounds. That may not sound like much but I am now within 10 pounds of where my weight was back when I was 25 (I am now over 50). The fat around my stomach (creating that horrible muffin top) is almost completely gone.

I eat bacon, eggs, steak, chicken, vegetables and snack on nuts and cheese. I still eat the occasional carb, but the amounts are very small. While my friends are all talking about dieting to get rid of the pounds they put on during the holidays, I am happy to report that I did not gain a pound. And I still managed to enjoy the holidays! I feel better than I have in years, both physically and mentally. I no longer look at myself in the mirror and cringe.

@JD: When I first heard about low-carb diets I was as skeptical as you. So I started digging into the actual science, in fact I spent literally days just reading and studying and researching the actual science behind it and was amazed at how substantial it is. Actual science, actual research, actual solid understanding of how our bodies process food, how and when our bodies burn fat, how and why low-carb diets work, and that they're not bad for you. I haven't managed to go permanently full low-carb but look and feel better and healthier since reducing carbs and reducing refined carbs in particular.

Thanks for the response, AnonDude.

Again, let me refer to that bit from the Mayo Clinic. They're aren't saying that low-carb diets are bad for people, or that they don't work. They're basically saying that they aren't necessarily better than higher-carb diets. If someone loves bread, pasta, etc. they'd have to be convinced that a low-carb diet was superior to a higher-carb diet.

This is really a case where the 'world' - even major dietary advice institutions - has gotten itself on the wrong bandwagon and it will take time to reverse.

So what, exactly, is the "wrong bandwagon"? Is it a failure to acknowledge that the healthiest diet for everyone (or most people) is a low-carb diet?

Are Taubes & Eades (and other proponents of low-carb diets) the only medical-nutrition professionals who use actual science, and actual research? Are they the only medical-nutrition professionals who have a solid understanding of how our bodies process food, and how and when our bodies burn fat? I'm just curious. That sure seems to be the implication, that they, and they alone, possess this "truth."

I like this comment below that I just found on a website. It addresses the difficulty a "true believer" has when the belief is questioned:

His bias has hypnotized him to the point that he can’t see anything that doesn’t confirm to what he already believes. We all fall victim to the confirmation bias and have to fight it constantly.

I would agree that "all" of us fall victim to confirmation bias to some extent. But it affects some more than others. The more passionately you believe something to be true, the more likely you are to be unable or unwilling to see anything (or be open to anything) that doesn’t confirm what you already believe.

JD it seems you're missing a couple of critical points. Forget about these words “truth” and “true believer” and let's take about something just as important, “mechanism.” I'll get to that in a minute but first some stage setting.

We all know skepticism is not only healthy it's also an integral part of the scientific method. I am a ardent supporter of healthy skepticism and the scientific method. That said, what we are talking about here is physical health and, in particular, weight loss. Obviously no theory creates weight lose, only action can do that. If we wait for all the “experts” to agree we will never take action. I'm sure we've all heard of the “paralysis of analysis.” Realistically, the best plan is to pick a weight lose strategy/program and get going. But it's important to realize that not all programs are created equal.

There is a preponderance of evidence in the scientific literature that low-carb dieting has what's called a “metabolic advantage.” Without explaining what that is I will simply refer you to a study conducted by Chris Gardner at Stanford. Here's a JAMA link to the article:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/969.short

Even better, here's a video of Dr. Gardner himself reporting the findings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo

If you watch that video (a wonderfully relaxing presentation indeed) you'll hear Gardner mention that he's a 25-year vegetarian. Apparently he doesn't suffer from what a commenter named Joe (and now you) previously called the “confirmation bias.”

I can tell you that I have personally lost lots of weight with the low-carb lifestyle. What's more I have seen my father cured of diabetes on said diet. The problem, and I understand this completely, is that my evidence is completely anecdotal. A study of n=1 ain't so great. So the solution, of course, is to go to the literature.

A previously commenter named Lori referred to the work done by Richard Feinman, which is excellent work and happens to support the low-carb hypothesis. A couple other names would be Stephen Phinney, Ronald Krauss, Jeff Volek, Robert Lustig, etc. All hardcore, independent scientists whose work has confirmed the hypothesis.

But what you're seemingly missing is a very central aspect of scientific explanation. And that component is “mechanism.” If you want to ignore the hard data (and I don't blame you, it's very heavy lifting) perhaps you should just consider the various mechanisms.

The old school (establish – low-fat – high-carb) chalks up a person's weight to simple thermodynamics. They say it's simply calories in minus calories out. And this leads to the recommendation of, “eat less and exercise more.” This sounds intuitively obvious. The only problem is that it ain't true. Even by personal observation we can debunk this mechanism. Do you know any one we eats like crazy and remains thin (or at least not over weight)? I think we all do. And, if you don't, talk to a Type I diabetic. They could eat all day and gain zero without their insulin injections.

So, if the mechanism lacks explanatory power perhaps it should be discarded. Fortunately, an alternative hypothesis/mechanism is available. This mechanism suggested that carbohydrate drives insulin which drives weight gain (in fact all of the metabolic syndrome). As to be expected, we can put this to the test as well. The story of Type I diabetics certainly confirm the mechanism. But let's not stop there. A simple way to disprove the mechanism would be a lot like the way we disproved the simple thermodynamics a minute ago. All we need to do is find someone we has maintained low levels of circulating insulin (meaning carb restriction) and yet has gained weight. My challenge to you is to produce that person. You will be hard-pressed to do so. What I'm saying is that this mechanism stands up.

We haven't even touched on the evolutionary explanation of why low-carb is the best, because we don't have to. If you would like to look into it, look up Mike Richard at the Max Planck Institute and his colleagues. A simple little experiment is to ask what happens when we eat kernels of corn or wheat. They simply pass right through. We don't have the machinery to digest these cereal grains. Man, being as ingenious as he is, has figured out ways to gets at the nutrition contained in cereal grains, with techniques such as milling. But that doesn't change the fact that nature didn't set up up to eat these foods.

So whether you want a biochemical explanation or an evolutionary explanation the facts sure seem to line up. I say this because getting the facts/truth out there is important. And that's what Eades and Taubes are doing. I also happen to be rather fond of Ms Alkon, she knows what she's talking about.

1. There is a preponderance of evidence in the scientific literature that low-carb dieting has what's called a “metabolic advantage.”

2. A previously commenter named Lori referred to the work done by Richard Feinman, which is excellent work and happens to support the low-carb hypothesis. A couple other names would be Stephen Phinney, Ronald Krauss, Jeff Volek, Robert Lustig, etc. All hardcore, independent scientists whose work has confirmed the hypothesis.

3...a very central aspect of scientific explanation. And that component is “mechanism.” Fortunately, an alternative hypothesis/mechanism is available. This mechanism suggested that carbohydrate drives insulin which drives weight gain (in fact all of the metabolic syndrome).

4. We haven't even touched on the evolutionary explanation of why low-carb is the best, because we don't have to.

OK, so...

1. preponderance of evidence in the scientific literature? check

2. a group of hardcore, independent scientists whose work has confirmed the hypothesis? check

3. mechanism? check

4. evolutionary explanation: check

Thanks Courtney. I appreciate that. Quite impressive. Obviously, it's a slam-dunk. Done deal. Case closed. All medical and nutritional professionals clearly should be on board the low-carb train.

Come on now. Don't go to the black-and-white extreme for effect. On one extreme is what they called a very-low-fat, plant-based diet, which is commonly known as vegan. An example of this would be former president Bill Clinton, he went this way after his heart scare. The other extreme would be total meat. An example would be the Inuit.

In the middle I would say are people like Harvard's Walt Willett who promotes the popular Mediterranean-style diet and Australia's Jenni Brand-Miller, one of the leading advocates for the glycemic index.

If a person has moral objections to eating animals, I think it's great if they're vegan. But it's just not true to say that humans aren't supposed to eat meat. That's the argument of people like Colin Campbell in his book The China Study. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Berkeley guy, I'm down with the hippie movement. While I object to the inhumane treatment of animals, I can't deny that humans clearly evolved as meat-eaters.

The interesting thing about the middle is that they're basically saying to go low-carb without actually saying it. In his book Eat, Drink and Be Healthy Willett talks about metabolic syndrome and advocates eating whole grains and such. This is very popular right now, refined sugars are on trial for their life. But what all this talk about whole grains is clearly talking about is carbohydrate metabolism. And this is even more obvious with the glycemic index (GI). For what else is the glycemic index talking about is it isn't carbohydrate metabolism? Both the Mediterranean and GI are saying to restrict you intake of easily digested carbs. For people who aren't very insulin resistant this works just fine. But over-weight people are almost by definition insulin resistant.

The low-carb diet has a metabolic advantage. If you want to stack the cards in your favor, go low-carb.

OK, let me refine what I said above to:

All medical and nutritional professionals clearly should be on board the if-you-want-to-stack-the-cards-in-your-favor-go low-carb train.

Yes Boss!! :-)

Thanks, but that's reserved for this guy.

So Courtney, although we agree that all medical and nutritional professionals clearly should be on board that train, I think we can also agree that many are not. For those that are not, why do you think they have not yet achieved low-carb enlightenment?

"His bias has hypnotized him to the point that he can’t see anything that doesn’t confirm to what he already believes. We all fall victim to the confirmation bias and have to fight it constantly"

@JD Yes, I continually fall victim to a confirmation bias in believing that the earth goes round the sun, that I might be hit by a car if I stand in the middle of the highway, that the sky is blue, that there is no such thing as witches, that masturbation doesn't in fact cause blindness, that if I jump out the window of a ten-story building I will fall to the ground due to gravity, and that rain is wet. I have to fight it constantly, and keep reminding myself that I've just been hypnotized by my bias to keep confirming these things I already believe.

Hint, merely 'believing' something doesn't make it 'confirmation bias'.

"For those that are not, why do you think they have not yet achieved low-carb enlightenment? "

And those who think they can jump out the window of a ten story building and fly by flapping their arms, why haven't they achieved gravity englightenment?

Sorry, system chopped off the end of my comment, should've read:

And those who think they can jump out the window of a ten story building and fly by flapping their arms, why haven't they achieved gravity englightenment? ((Smug sarcasm while presenting an irrational logical fallacy as an "argument"))

"They're basically saying that they aren't necessarily better than higher-carb diets. If someone loves bread, pasta, etc. they'd have to be convinced that a low-carb diet was superior to a higher-carb diet."

You mean apart from lower obesity rates, lower rates of heart disease, lower rates of depression, lower rates of diabetes, better management of diabetes, lower rates of fatigue, lower rates of inflammation and related disorders, lower death rates (obesity leads to 300,000 deaths a year in the US alone)? I don't know, I can't think of anything. Something tells me if you had interest in being anything more than smugly arrogant, and actually learning something, you would've been able to trivially figure that out on your own, instead of posing faux questions.

"Is it a failure to acknowledge that the healthiest diet for everyone (or most people) is a low-carb diet?"

Strawman much?

Amy demonstrates her brilliance again with her reference to Mistakes Were Made. If you've read that book you know the confirmation bias is real. But accusing people of a confirmation bias in order to disprove their argument is just a cop-out.

JD, I imagine the reasons could be as varied as snowflakes. You may not like him but Gary Taubes does do a good job of tracing our dietary history in Good Calories Bad Calories. It's a big book, a heavy read, but worth it to any one in search of answers. Big names in the story are Ancel Keys and George McGovern.

But without getting into it too deep, I sometimes feel like a big part of the problem is intuition. I think far too many people put too much trust in their intuition. Intuition can be a great thing but it can also lead us astray. And I think science does a great job of looking past intuition to get to truth. I wish people would put more faith in science and less faith in intuition.

Culture is a wonderful device that allows humans to build off the wisdom of our ancestors. Each generation passes along suggestions and rules of the road of living. But the human mind isn't designed for logic, so these rules aren't concerned with accuracy as much as they're concerned with efficiency. Meaning it's not so much what's right but what works.

One cultural artifact that has been passed down seems about as intuitively obvious as it gets. And that idea is the following, “You are what you eat.” If you believe you are what you eat then you probably believe eating fat makes you fat. I guess carbohydrates would represent energy and protein would equal muscle. The only problem is that it isn't true. More accurately, it's not completely true. As a rule-of-thumb or general guideline advocating prudence the statement serves a purpose. But stretched too far it can backfire. So while we find intuitive truth in the statement we also find objective error.

People intuitively knew that the earth was the center of the universe until a guy named Copernicus came along. When reality conflicts with our intuition we often arrive at one of my favorite subjects, a paradox. A paradox isn't necessarily a contradiction, it might simply reveal a lack of knowledge or insight.

As low-carbers will tell you, you need to eat fat to lose fat. That's a counter intuitive, even paradoxical statement. It also happens to be true. Calories in minus calories out is intuitively true, it makes sense. And the idea that blood fats (cholesterol and triglycerides) result from the fat we put in our mouths seems to make sense as well, some might even call it logical. But again, it isn't true (it may be partially true).

Also people can get fooled by their observations, even their eyes. It may be hard for us to believe but people in the heat of the desert used to truly believe that if they just kept walking they'd eventually reach that body of water. It's absolutely true you can lose weight eating lots of carbs, I've done it myself. The key is not to mistake what's possible for what's probable. It's possible I could own my way down a double black diamond slope, but the probability is that the results would be disastrous. You could possibly break the house at the card tables but you'll probably go broke trying.

Also important is that once the “rules” are set they're very hard to change. A modern day dietary boogie-man is salt/sodium. Everywhere you go there's people telling you to cut out the salt, cut out the sodium. Didn't they propose a salt ban in New York? Probably the hardest part of the low-carb lifestyle for me has been the amount of salt I've had to add to my food. Coming for the old-school I've always avoided salt and rarely added it to anything. Now I have to add it to everything or suffer the consequences. So people that say healthy eating involves a reduction in sodium have gotten it exactly backwards. That's so crazy to me. But the truth only makes sense if you understand the mechanism.

So, as I've heard it said, sometimes we need to look past common sense to uncommon sense.

By the way, one thing I've haven't mentioned is my unwavering appreciation for the work of Michael and Mary Dan Eades. They are exemplary individuals and manifestations of Kant's “restlessness of reason.”

I started low-carbing in 2009 after reading Taubes and it dramatically changed my life for the better. So did resistance training when I started it a year later under the influence of the low-carbing community.

My weight-loss plateaued however - despite attempts to zero-carb, cut out cheese and nuts etc. In fact, I found that I was able to "cheat" with rice, root vegetables, beer etc. and not put on belly fat as long as I stayed away from sugar and wheat products.

Stephan Guyenet has written what seems to be the first scientifically thorough critique of Taubes' account of carbs/insulin (see his blog at wholehealthsource.blogspot.com). It should be read by anyone who wants to evaluate the science of obesity and low-carbing

Courtney, thanks for taking the time to answer that last question of mine.

I was telling a friend of mine this morning about this discussion.
She told me she knows a lot of low-carb fanatics and she said, "you were questioning the divinity of Muhammed...no wonder you got the response you did."

I came across this piece, by Dr. Richard N. Fogoros, that I liked because he doesn't appear to be a "true believer" in either low-carb or low-fat: Low Fats, or Low Carbs? Is there common ground?

Some excerpts:

While politics, religion and sports each create their fair share of bloody rivalries, nothing beats the level of animus generated by differing dietary philosophies.

A case in point would be physicians espousing low fat diets vs. those advocating low carbohydrate diets. . . Members of each group think they are absolutely and demonstrably right about the best dietary pathway to weight loss and good health, and that their opponents are intractably, thickheadedly, and disastrously wrong. Each group publishes scores of articles and books supporting their respective positions, backed up by scientific studies, and all of these tracts sound quite convincing. What we're left with is two groups of eminent physicians passionately supporting opposite points of view on something as fundamental to health as the optimal diet.

Like Republicans and Democrats, the respective advocates of low carb and low fat diets actually have a lot more in common than appears on the surface. It can be helpful to those of us looking for the "right" diet to examine what those similarities may be. We can begin mitigating differences in these two dietary approaches right away by stating a truth that neither party can deny: if a person takes in more calories - whether in the form of fats or carbohydrates - than he or she burns up, that person becomes obese.

At the end of the day, we can state four general rules that all parties - both low fat and low carb - would agree to:

1) Avoid the simple carbohydrates that cause rapid rises and falls in insulin levels - pasta, potatoes, rice, and products made from refined flour.

2) Eat the more complex carbohydrates - vegetables and fruits - that supply necessary vitamins and roughage, without stimulating rapid rises and falls in insulin levels.

3) Eat foods that supply the "good" fats - fish, nuts, olives, avocados.

4) Avoid processed foods of any type that contain transfatty acids - possibly the worst kind of fat you can ingest.

Unfortunately, the low carb and low fat people will always have a few fundamental disagreements. This group adores saturated fats - meats and dairy products - that are the kiss of death to that group. And that group loves the fruits and grains that cause this group to run away screaming. But for those of us who aren't intent on defending a position - just trying to do what is best - these are differences we can probably live with. These four rules of agreement ought to be enough to get us started. Those, and common sense, should steer us in the right direction.

you are simply interested in aggrandizing yourself by repeating yourself ad infinitum.

The Internet Community has a word that describes this behavior. Trolling.

Cure:

1) Do not feed. I.E., quit responding and giving the troll attention.

2) Ban. Add his IP# to the block list.

Realize that his goal is to get as much attention and waste as much of your time as possible. He asks minimal effort questions, "So I suppose you can point to real experts who support this?", and forces everyone else to make large posts with extensive documentation.

Quit playing.

you have no interest in the evidence

To quote from Dr. Fogoros:

Members of each group think they are absolutely and demonstrably right about the best dietary pathway to weight loss and good health, and that their opponents are intractably, thickheadedly, and disastrously wrong.

My friend was spot-on. It's like being on a Salafist blog and questioning the divinity of Muhammed.

...forces everyone else to make large posts with extensive documentation.

"Forces everyone." How hilarious. On the other blog I post on, when people don't care for a post, they simply it ignore it instead of whining about being "forced" to respond.

Yeah, no need to get worked up....

If JD is just screwing around, big deal. I spent some time writing my posts just to run through and clarify my own thinking, looking for holes. Peter Drucker (a big-time hero of mine) was fond of saying that to teach is to learn twice.

Amy, you mention your faith in two people, that math genius and Gary Taubes. Funny thing, isn't Taubes' brother a mathematician at Harvard?

JD, it was my pleasure to answer your question. However, you do seem to like to rattle people's cage with the 'true believer' stuff. If, in fact, you liked Dr. Fogoros' piece because of its supposed neutrality then you strike me as a person who has a hard time making up his (or her, JD is ambiguous like Courtney) mind. When some one asks you to make a commitment or a decision do you prefer to give a, “definite maybe”?

And, as it turns out, if you read those four general rules from your expert Dr. Fogoros you'll see that they're not the low-fat paradigm at all. They're basically the low-carb diet. 1. Stay off the insulin roller coaster (almost by definition low-carb eating) 2. Eat vegetables and fruits (more vegetables and no tropical fruits) 3. Eat good fats (and lots of them) 4. No TFA's (MD Eades would call them FrankenFats). The only thing you'd need to add is, “eat adequate protein,” and you have the low-carb lifestyle.

So since you're willing to do Google searches and stuff, I encourage you to keep at it, keep searching. If you keep an open-mind and avoid that damned confirmation bias I think you'll eventually come back to this board and post that you now agree with us. And then lightning will really strike!

Oh, and, by the way, I disagree with another critical point in Dr. Fogoros' article. He refers to, “a truth that neither party can deny: if a person takes in more calories - whether in the form of fats or carbohydrates - than he or she burns up, that person becomes obese.” This is a restatement of that old thermodynamic bugaboo, “Calories in minus calories out.” The fact that you re-posted it suggested you either had forgotten what I said in a previous post or you somehow disagree with me.

Dr. Fogoros' statement is demonstrably false. Again I ask you whether or not you know any one who can eat like crazy and not become overweight. And if you don't know such a person, fine. However, how then do you explain the experience of Type I diabetics? They can eat, and eat, and eat, and eat, and not gain a pound.

Once again, mechanism matters! The thermodynamic statement, “Calories in minus calories out,” is an inaccurate mechanism and doesn't explain the observed phenomenon. The mechanism that stands up is, “carbohydrate drives insulin which drives fat accumulation.”

So, here's a big problem. The fact that Dr. Fogoros' made a categorical mistake in stating what he believes to be, “a truth neither party can deny,” suggests that he's prone to error. And, the fact that you're fond of that article suggests you might have a hole in your fact-checking apparatus.

If my proposed mechanism is correct then we would expect a low-carb diet to have a “metabolic advantage.” And, if you're open-minded, and are willing to look at a brilliant explain of the metabolic advantage I would refer to the following blogpost by Dr. Eades:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/is-a-calorie-always-a-calorie/

In that post you'll encounter an important, but under-respected, name in the world of nutrition, John Yudkin.

Kampai!

More on why calories in, calories out is a myth from Dr. Feinman:

"First, we can settle the question of metabolic advantage, or more precisely, energy inefficiency. The question is whether all of the calories in food are available for weight gain or loss (or exercise) regardless of the composition of the diet. Right off, metabolic advantage is an inherent property of higher protein diets and low carbohydrate diets. In the first case, the thermic effect of feeding (TEF) is a measure of how many of the calories in food are wasted in the process of digestion, absorption, low-level chemical transformation, etc. TEF (old name: specific dynamic action) is well known and well studied. Nobody disputes that the TEF can be substantial for protein, typically 20 % of calories. It is much less for carbohydrate and still less for fat. So, substituting any protein for either of the other macronutrients will lead to energy inefficiency (the calories will be wasted as heat). A second unambiguous point is that in the case of low-carbohydrate diets, in order to maintain blood glucose, the process of gluconeogenesis is required. You learn in biochemistry courses that it requires a good deal of energy to convert protein (the major source for gluconeogenesis) into glucose."

http://rdfeinman.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/metabolic-advantage-%E2%80%9Ca-calorie-is-a-calorie%E2%80%9D-and-why-the-first-law-of-thermodynamics-does-not-apply-2/

Not that JD will be interested--he or she hasn't had a word to say about any links we've posted, and for all his/her science-y sounding statements, they're nothing one appeal to authority after another.

Ahhhh! Gluconeogenesis. What a great word Lori. The low-fat people would have us believe that we must eat carbohydrate daily. That our brains must have carbohydrate to function.

But isn't it curious that an accepted form of treatment for epilepsy is a ketogenic diet? Far from being necessary, if you read that statement a little differently it's talking about the ability of carbohydrate to cause your brain to malfunction.

According to what I've read, after a few weeks on a low carb diet, our brains (and some other cells and tissues) run on a combination of ketones and glucose.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/metabolism-and-ketosis/

Gluconeogenisis, for those not familiar with the term, is our liver making glucose out of protein. So yes, those who insist that you MUST eat carbs for your brain or other tissues to function need to review Endocrinology 101. And they need to stop and think about how the cro-magnons, who were anatomically modern humans, managed to survive a 100,000-year ice age on a diet that was nearly all meat.

Ha!

No doubt Amy already knows this, but for anyone else contemplating an all-meat diet, you need to either include organ meat or have a carefully crafted vitamin and mineral supplement program. (Certain organ meats contain essential vitamins and minerals like vitamin C and copper, which muscle meat like steak lacks.)

Even if you're eating a varied low-carb diet, supplements like magnesium and (for some of us) vitamin D are important; I think this was mentioned in the interview. In faact, Dr. Atkins was recommending supplements back in the 1970s when most doctors thought only kooks took vitamins.