Mashed Sous Veades Low Carb Logic (Shai Update)

Well, the pudgy mirdled one, diet book author and former diet doctor Mike Eades has taken a break from changing the world** with his Sous Vide* to compose his ninth blog post of the year!  Last we heard from him here at The Asylum, he and his wife had resolved to -- yet again! -- diet in 2012.  You'll see why all of those links are relevant as we get into discussing his latest:  Are carbohydrates fattening?

His post refers to the 6 year follow-up (4 years after the initial 2 year study) from the famous diet comparison study from Shai  I discussed this study back in my more gregarious days (grin) in Gary Taube$, Shai-ster?   This study was done in a workplace setting in Israel, where through the cafeteria, they were able to assist participants in complying with the diet by offering choices labeled as appropriate for their assigned diet plan.  
In this 2-year trial, we randomly assigned 322 moderately obese subjects (mean age, 52 years; mean body-mass index..., 31; male sex, 86%) to one of three diets: low-fat, restricted-calorie; Mediterranean, restricted-calorie; or low-carbohydrate, non–restricted-calorie.
Lest there be any confusion as to how the diets were prescribed, here is that section from the original paper:

Low-Fat Diet
The low-fat, restricted-calorie diet was based on American Heart Association20 guidelines. We aimed at an energy intake of 1500 kcal per day for women and 1800 kcal per day for men, with 30% of calories from fat, 10% of calories from saturated fat, and an intake of 300 mg of cholesterol per day. The participants were counseled to consume low-fat grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes and to limit their consumption of additional fats, sweets, and high-fat snacks.

Mediterranean Diet
The moderate-fat, restricted-calorie, Mediterranean diet was rich in vegetables and low in red meat, with poultry and fish replacing beef and lamb. We restricted energy intake to 1500 kcal per day for women and 1800 kcal per day for men, with a goal of no more than 35% of calories from fat; the main sources of added fat were 30 to 45 g of olive oil and a handful of nuts (five to seven nuts, < 20 g) per day. The diet is based on the recommendations of Willett and Skerrett.21

Low-Carbohydrate Diet
The low-carbohydrate, non–restricted-calorie diet aimed to provide 20 g of carbohydrates per day for the 2-month induction phase and immediately after religious holidays, with a gradual increase to a maximum of 120 g per day to maintain the weight loss. The intakes of total calories, protein, and fat were not limited. However, the participants were counseled to choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein and to avoid trans fat. The diet was based on the Atkins diet (see Supplementary Appendix 2).22
I've left the links intact so you can see the plans each were based on. OK, so by now most in this audience are well familiar with the results in the graphic at right (click to enlarge). Despite the fact that at the 1 year mark, the MDTN group had lost statistically equal amounts of weight as the LC group, low carb gurus like Eades were still touting this as a triumph for the late great Robert Atkins!  Now so you don't have to go link hopping, here's the self-reported dietary intake (self-reported, see article for details, some 24 hour recall X2)

Please note that these are changes from baseline not amounts consumed.  That direct information is unfortunately not provided.  I also want to make it crystal clear to anyone reading this, as I've repeated quite often since my first discussion of this study, that these self-reports in a free living study are meaningless.  M.e.a.n.i.n.g.l.e.s.s.  Except that Taubes and Eades and others have mentioned this study numerous times, and keep mentioning it.  It's central to Taubes' "oh shit I can't use the alpha glycerol phosphate stuff I got wrong in GCBC so I need to make up some other spiel low carbers will buy" newer theories on why we get fat:  Calories, fat or carbohydrates? Why diets work (when they do).   So successful with the indoctrinated was this argument (though not with the general public as WWGF barely made it onto the NYT Bestseller list and lasted all of a week there), that Eades reprised it in his AHS11 talk.***  He basically regurgitated Taubes in that segment of the talk.

Both offer up an analysis comparing just the LC and LF groups in the study, ignoring the MDTN group.  If you are going to believe the intake data, the MDTN group counters the argument, because they reportedly restricted  carbohydrates the least of the three groups yet lost the same amount of weight as the low carbers. To be fair, and this is just one reason this data is so useless, the MDTN group would counter a CICO argument because they also restricted calories less than either LF or LC and lost more weight than the LFers and the same weight as the LCers.  

Average Weight Changes, kg/lbs
    2yrs loss all           LF:  2.9/6.4    MDTN:  4.4/9.7     LC:  4.7/10.3
    2yrs loss comp.    LF:  3.3/7.3    MDTN:  4.6/10.1   LC:  5.5/12.1
    6yrs loss:                LF:  0.6/1.3    MDTN:  3.1/6.8     LC:  1.7/3.7
    4yr regain
       calc:                      LF:  2.7/5.9    MDTN:  1.5/3.3     LC:  3.8/8.4
       reported:             LF:  2.7/5.9    MDTN:  1.4/3.1     LC:  4.1/9.0
We'll get back to the initial Shai study in a bit.  But let's FF to current times and what Eades gleaned from the update from Shai.  Here's how the groups fared weight-wise, I've reported the weights in both kg and lbs in the caption, and included the 2-to-6 year regain for each group.   From this graph, the 2 year data is for the completers of the dietary intervention (2nd line of caption), but the weight gains reported in the followup don't match exactly when calculated from the 6 year losses (3rd line - 2nd line),  likely do to slight differences in the group that was followed up on.   I included both, as the differences are rather inconsequential.

It would appear to me that Eades sees the greater regain by the low carbers as evidence that carbs make you fat.  Man oh man they are truly desperate in LLVLClue-land these days if they are willing to risk discussing this anecdotal phenomenon -- of greater regains post-LC than other diets -- to promote the intellectually bereft  notion that carbohydrates make you fat.  

First, however, I'm going to call Eades out once again for ignoring the Mediterranean dieters.  This group regained the least for the largest net loss all the while reporting the smallest changes in both carbohydrate and caloric restriction.  Hardly impressive, but them's the facts folks, and we only have a low carbohydrate cheerleader, diet book author, guru to thank for pointing out this information!  The Mediterranean diet target was 35% fat, with the extra fat vs. LF to be MUFA.  It was still lower in fat than LC.  Try as they might, none of these ridiculous theories make any sense using Shai for reference unless you ignore the Mediterranean dieters.  

Let's look a bit at what Eades is now writing -- remember, this guy still thinks the solution to all of your weight problems is to go low carb!
Many years ago, I was taking questions after giving a presentation to a large group of both doctors and laymen. A lady stood up and told me she always lost weight whenever she went on a low-carbohydrate diet, but she also always gained it back more quickly after going off such a diet than she did when she regained weight she had lost on a low-fat diet. As I listened to her question, my brain was busily formatting a smart-assed answer along the lines of, Well, that’s God’s way of telling you not to go off of your low-carb diet. But, looking out over the audience, I noticed a lot of heads nodding in agreement. I realized I needed a reasonable answer.
Aside from the fact that this guy comes off as a jerk admitting how he planned a smart-ass response to the woman were it not for the fact that a lot of heads were nodding in agreement, this is an admission by Eades that he's aware of this, at least anecdotally, and has been so for many years.  Since he and his co-author, wife and otherwise partner in crime both continue to struggle with their weights and staying on a low carb diet, it seems all the more unethical for these two to continue to promote a diet that potentially sets one up for greater regains than other approaches.  Is there really anything to boast about in terms of greater weight losses if greater regains are in store?

Before going on, I must mention my personal experience here and why this is so important to me.  This is one of my own issues with LC, and yes it's just an anecdote, but it is what it is.  After developing my eating disorder in my late teens, I struggled with my weight for many years thereafter always seemingly "topping out" at roughly the same weight and size before embarking on an effort to drop the weight.  After my first bout with Atkins, I very quickly regained the 40 lbs or so lost, and blew right on through my former "weight ceiling" to the tune of another 60 or so lbs!  I see this in quite a few in the community, including one blogger who *still* advocates for the diet??!!!    One cannot advocate for a diet based on short term "superiority" in good conscience when evidence is all around you that it can be counterproductive in the long term.   

So when Eades goes on to say:
My bias was/is that carbohydrates are vastly more fattening than the same number of fat or protein calories, so let’s assume that at the start.
A low-carb diet restricts carbohydrates, and so restricts the most fattening of the three macronutrients. If my assumption is true, then people on low-carb diets should lose more weight faster, which the majority of studies shows to be the case.
A low-fat diet restricts fat and secondarily protein, because most forms of high-quality protein contain fat. Both fat and protein are less fattening per kcal than carbohydrate. If this assumption is true, then people on low-fat diets that restrict fat and/or protein should lose less weight and lose it more slowly, which a majority of studies shows to be the case.
How does one cheat or go off a low-fat diet? By eating more fat and/or protein.
How does one cheat or go off a low-carb diet? By eating more carbohydrate.
Since – in my view – carbs are more fattening than fat and/or protein, it makes sense that adding the more fattening carbs to a low-carb diet would cause more weight gain than adding the less-fattening fat/protein to a low-fat diet.
Ergo, in going off of a low-carb diet one would pack on pounds more quickly as compared to going off a low-fat diet.
Seemed to make sense to me at the time, and it made sense to the audience.
OK ... it seems to make sense.  But it doesn't make sense to anyone who knows that you have to eat roughly 3500 extra calories to gain a pound of true fat.   Nevermind the nuances of that argument -- yes, I know that you don't gain just fat, and it never adds up exactly because of other reasons, but it's those other reasons, not the carbs, that I think are at play here.  What other reasons?  Well, (1) the nature of the tissue gained and (2) metabolic adaptation.  Sorry to skip around so much, but I'll discuss what I think is really going on in a follow-up post.  Right now I'd like to look a bit more about Shai and what it tells us and what Eades' analysis of it tells us.  

Firstly, Eades is making one erroneous assumption ... that in the 4 year follow-up we're looking at people who "went off the diet".  Did they?  It appears that the follow-up analysis is only for completers at the 2-year mark.  Whatever the impact, we're talking about groups that represented 90.4% for LF, 85.3% for MDTN and 78% for LC of the original participants.  Of these they were able to follow up an an impressive 259 of 272 2-yr completers.  This tells me that those that stuck it out for the two years were fairly motivated and likely "weeded out".  But did the low carbers who regained the most to prove Eades' point that carbs are fattening go "off the diet"?  Not according to the paper!!  (Did Eades read it?)  
At 6 years after study initiation, 67% of the participants had continued with their originally assigned diet, 11% had switched to another diet, and 22% were not dieting (P=0.36 for all comparisons).
That P=0.36 means that the breakdown of compliance was similar for each of the groups.  So, the low carb group gained back more weight than either of the low fat diet groups despite roughly two-thirds remaining on the diet!   If one goes back and uses the maximum weight loss at the 4-5 month mark of about 6.4 kg, this group regained roughly 4.7 kg.  Given the differentials between completers and all subjects at the 2 year mark, one can infer that this group likely averaged even more impressive losses at the nadir. But they regained about 75% of their losses.  Meanwhile, for the MDTN group we can pretty much ignore the little blip at the 10 month mark and using the slightly more impressive 4.6 kg loss for the 2-yr completers, the regain is roughly 30%.  We can massage this data any which way, but there's not a person out there who should be touting the typical LC weight loss trajectory as in any way superior or preferred to that seen for the MDTN group in this Shai study.  

So, what do we learn from Shai?  That on average, the Mediterranean diet is the most successful weight loss intervention among three rather unsuccessful approaches.  We are given scant information as to what it meant to still be "dieting" for the 67% who claimed they were still following their diets.  I tend to think that's rather inflated, but this brings me to another trap with LC -- the peril of the "tryers".    There is one low carber who I have apparently made famous for pointing out her dogged devotion to the diet despite the horrendous results.  Yes, I speak once again of Amy Dungan who is the poster-dieter for what happens to someone who tries to stay LC, and perhaps manages to do so about 80% of the time (I'm pretty sure I'm recalling her saying that was her degree of compliance during this now over a decade of "lowcarbing", sorry no link).  Starting out her journey at 177 lbs, she lost 45 lbs in 2001-2.  Then she regained and gained more (sound familiar?) so that in 2007 her "before" weight was 203 lbs.  Near as I can tell, the 159 "after" weight that year is the lowest she's been since, and likely she's weighed more than her initial 177 lbs for most if not all of the intervening years.  Is Amy Dungan the person Dr. Eades is using as an example of why carbohydrates make us fat??  Does he ever wonder why his friend struggles so?

How about the more die-hard?  You didn't really think I'd make it through this post without mentioning Jimmy Moore did you?  What does Eades think of his gaining 55 some-odd pounds over the course of about 6 months in 2011, all the while eating low carb?  I suppose Eades will blame the occasional paleo sweet potato for this phenomenon, but c'mon, you can't blame a poor potato when it's in the form of fries, or doused in butter, or mixed with a ton of almond butter.  I think phenomenal weight regains on low carb are far more the norm than we hear about.  Giving as his AHS11 presentation was really all about how paleos are "caving" on the carb thing, I tend to think Eades really does tune this inconvenient stuff all out.

So I am happy to hear Eades address this disturbing phenomenon associated with low carb diets.  It goes well past those first 5-10 lbs of glycogen and associated water in either direction.  More than a smart-ass response or a steeped-in-bias response is required from the diet doc, though I doubt highly we'll ever get one.   I have some ideas to share with you soon.  Maybe it might help the doc himself get off the DIET rollercoaster.  Perhaps rather than repeating and repeating the same mantra, he might be interested in the possible real reasons why this might be.  Then, maybe, he'll ring in 2013 without the need to resolve to diet (low carb of course) once again, and without the low fat bashing amidst the reality that it seems harder and harder to lose the weight each time one tries.  This too seems to be especially true for low carbers.  Right now Jimmy is "succeeding" by adopting an incredibly extreme diet.  It's the only thing left in LC to try unless Volek & Phinney can come up with The Art and Science of Negative Carbohydrate Living once the nutty ketosis brings diminishing results.

This is what LC advocacy has been reduced to.  Go low carb!  Buy my books, buy my products, buy whatever, support me and my community, etc.etc.etc.  And what do we have to show you?  A still obese man who has lost the same 50-some-odd pounds for the umpteenth time since he lost them the first time in 2004, only has to eat essentially zero carb to do so?  A more obese woman who can't seem to turn her dogmatic devotion to determined adherence and suffers because of it?  A diet doctor who keeps needing to diet and likely wears Spanx for men and clothing to camouflage them for public appearances?  A website ( run by an obese man who never lost much weight a while back. and surely has regained most or all of it, carrying articles by said obese man, with aforementioned obese woman as webmaster, soon to be publishing a book by another low carb yo yoer who has now resorted to alternate day fat fasting to keep things in check?  What IS the low carb world coming to?  

Ultimately I find this all very sad.  Because I think LC can be a lifesaving and powerful *intervention* for the metabolically compromised -- especially the extremely obese and/or sedentary.  What I've come to believe, however, is that unlike other interventions, long term compliance is likely not the best course of action.  That is, in maintenance LC fairs rather poorly (and no, that Ebbeling/JAMA study recently does not say otherwise, that was a short term, very high protein (around 250g/day) diet following weight loss with a 25% protein, LFHC approach.  If you go in eyes-wide-open, it's great, but the promoters of this diet don't want you to do that.  

But at least now you know this much:  When you go off of a LC diet, you tend to gain weight back faster than going off any other diet.  Dr. Eades tells us so!

Quotes from the ever humble Dr. Eades:

*The Sous Vide Supreme is the first new category of kitchen appliance since the microwave, so we’re incredibly excited about our role in what we think is a world-changing event. At least world changing in the same way the microwave was world changing.

**First off, I’ve got to apologize for the lack of attention to this blog lately. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I hadn’t realized that changing the world would be such a time-consuming endeavor, but it really is.

*** Some comments on the Eades' AHS11 talk:
It had been a good long while since I watched that talk, and I had intended to comment about this at the time.   I hope that AHS13's call for abstracts does indeed prove to be a step in the right direction for that organization, the symposium and the community as a whole.  In Eades' 2011 presentation, he actually included bashing someone for an exchange he had with her in comments on his blog.  Really?  And his was supposed to be a "sciencey" presentation by a medical professional.  It wasn't just an off hand comment, he made up a slide so it was planned!    Eades' was just one of many presentations of opinion/dogma and not fact.  It is likely impossible for the organizers to fact check presentations, but hopefully the screening process will be serious enough to look at the intended content of some of the proposals.  I don't know how much of the AHS11 content was fluid almost right up until the event, but AHS12's content sure was -- from complete changes in presentation titles/content, to last minute "substitutions", to full hours devoted to panels with completely undefined content of broad topics.  Eades' inclusion of the comment exchange in his presentation was totally unwarranted.  It added nothing to the presentation, no opportunity for learning by the audience.  What I learned was that Eades is a "diet book and other stuff" shill first, doctor and learned individual a distant second if that ... and "scientist"?  Not.


Javeux said…
I didn't know the (American English) word 'shill' until I read about Eades some time ago. I kind of like it and find myself using it now, so I have him to thank for that, but it doesn't make his shilling any more acceptable.

My advice is to eat good food without fearing it, try a bit of HIIT and resistance training and leave the dogma to religious institutions.
Anonymous said…
Every time I read what the Shai study asked for - that the low-carb dieters were encouraged to make it more vegetable-heavy, I think, 'huh?'

'The intakes of total calories, protein, and fat were not limited. However, the participants were counseled to choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein and to avoid trans fat. The diet was based on the Atkins diet '
So bizarre. That is not based on the Atkins diet, if vegetarian sources of fat and protein were part of the instructed diet.

How is it that this does not get called simple 'cover your ass'? If the choices are 'vegetarian,' then the authors of the study have instructed a diet that dovetails nicely into the prevailing trends in nutrition (lay off loading up on red meat and processed red meat products, for example). At the same time, it makes a low-carb diet very difficult to follow.

So bizarre.
Richard said…
CarbSane, enjoy your posts (although the science is often over my head) and mostly agree. I like the Jaminets' book (although I don't follow their prescription yet--moving very gradually towards it) and looking forward to their new edition.

I've currently lost about 25 pounds in a little less than 4 months with a moderately lower carb diet, but for the psst two months doing intermittent fasting 2x per week (e.g., eat breakfast on Tuesday morning, don't eat again until Wednesday morning--repeat at another time during the week). I don't snack, other than 2 of the Dove promise dark chocolates each evening (and that's a BIG change from former habits). I track food consumption with myfitnesspal.

I've also upped my exercise with walks 5-6 mornings of ca. 2 miles. I track walking with a FitBit--which works together online with myfitnesspal (and both have iPhone apps--probably android, too, I would think)--also parking further away from my office and generally striving to walk more each day. The tracking of both food and steps has been helpful and effective psychologically in staying motivated.

I also began a "Sprint 8" protocol on a recumbent exercise bike 2x a week (essentially 20 minutes riding: 2 minute warm-up, 30" sprint, 1:30 recovery, 30" sprint, etc. for a total of 8 "sprints" - the "sprints" progressively get more intense in effort--I up the resitance on sprints 5, 6, 7 and 8). Took me about 6 weeks of cycling easily (after 6 weeks of walking) to *begin* to do the sprint protocol--you can read much more about it with an online search. Part of the idea is it stimulates growth hormone release. Phil Campbell has a book on his approach, but frankly, you can get all you need online for free.

Am adding a few upper body exercises gradually, also twice a week (same time as sprint 8).

All effective so far and I'm at the point where I usually would be "going off the wagon" and back to old habits. At this point, I'm NOT feeling like doing that, which is a considerable change from prior diet/exercise attempts. I started at 235 (at 5'10.5") and probably should be around 160-175 (possibly lower, but depends on the muscle I would carry--I weighed around 150-155 in HS, so possibly should be there again. Won't be able to tell until I get there--I've been over 200 for so long that I can't quite imagine being even 175. I'm also 62 and diabetic (although my blood sugar has been fine with metformin only for over 10 years: A1C around 5.4). By the way, when I'm fasting my blood sugar stays very stable and I don't feel at all woozy, dizzy, or with any lack of energy.

One the Eades and shilling: I agree (polycosinol, or whatever it was called--shakes, etc.). However, I have to say, my wife and I have their Sous Vide and love it! As a way of cooking certain things, it's fantastic. My wife has done wonderful roasts, steaks, etc. with it, along with some other things as well. We find it worthwhile and well made.

All for now.
Puddleg said…
I wonder if the greater retention of gains (losses) after the MDTN diet related to the fact that this diet didn't depend on macronutrient ratios but on real foods - fish, salads, olive oil, wholefoods in general - so that once people dropped the calorie-restricted diet they generally kept eating some of the same stuff because they a) liked it b) knew it was healthy and still liked it.
Whereas with a diet that depends on ratios, when you're off it, the ratios are all different.
There are some papers out there on low-carb MDTN as I recall.

The effects of a low carbohydrate Mediterranean (LCM), a traditional Mediterranean (TM), and the 2003 American Diabetic Association (ADA) diet were compared, on health parameters during a 12-month period.
In this 12-month trial, 259 overweight diabetic patients (mean age 55 years, mean body mass index 31.4 kg/m(2)) were randomly assigned to one of the three diets. The primary end-points were reduction of fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c and triglyceride (TG) levels.
194 patients out of 259 (74.9%) completed follow-up. After 12 months, the mean weight loss for all patients was 8.3 kg: 7.7 kg for ADA, 7.4 kg for TM and 10.1 kg for LCM diets. The reduction in HbA1c was significantly greater in the LCM diet than in the ADA diet (-2.0 and -1.6%, respectively, p < 0.022). HDL cholesterol increased (0.1 mmol/l +/- 0.02) only on the LCM (p < 0.002). The reduction in serum TG was greater in the LCM (-1.3 mmol/l) and TM (-1.5 mmol/l) than in the ADA (-0.7 mmol/l), p = 0.001.

Diana said…
@Evie: Yes, the MDTN ommission struck me immediately. He's even more of a liar than Taubes. And this (from his blog):

"My bias was/is that carbohydrates are vastly more fattening than the same number of fat or protein calories, so let’s assume that at the start."

Assume this from the start? Why? Even the grammar of the sentence is crazy! "carbohydrates are vastly more fattening than the same number of fat or protein calories..." WTF does that mean?

Fat is per gram higher in calories than carbs or protein.

@George Henderson: Maybe the MDTN dieters have good success is because it's a diet that you can live with? It's satisfying, healthy, and when you find yourself going a bit "over", it is easy to cut back and skimp a bit.

@Richard: I lost weight in 2011 with IFing. I tried other stuff but basically it came back to that. Exercise helped keep it off but the IFing was the cause of the loss. I maintained my weight in 2012. I want to lose 10 more pounds in 2013. I have to work up to IFing. I find it stressful. Rewarding, but stressful. I don't know why. I did it the same way you did - 24 hours from meal to meal.
Galina L. said…
Diane, I found out during my own adaptation to IF that strong green tea with lemon made the difference. I also increased the IF period gradually, without jumping to 24 hours right away. Adaptation is important and makes the practice less stressful.
Sue said…
"her dogged devotion to the diet despite the horrendous results"

You could have been talking about me but not anymore as devotion is non-existant and getting great results.
The regain I experienced on low carb was much due to finding low carb substitutes of my favorite foods. More and more my diet morphed into a low-carb version of what made me overweight in the first place, it's no wonder I regained. That's the wonderful thing (or what seems like a wonderful thing at the time) about low carbing, you can still have pizza's, cakes, pies, etc that taste as good as the real thing, thinking you can eat them all until you're hearts content because they're low carb. A low carb diet can substitute fake sweeteners and pie crusts quite well, whilst a low-fat diet doesn't have a substitute for fat that tastes like the real deal.
It will be interesting to hear your opinions as to why low-carbers that come off the diet tend to gain more than other dieters. We all know committed low carbers only regain their weight from eating too much chocolate cake*

*Sorry, I meant protein.
CarbSane said…
Yes it is a bizarre "version" of Atkins. But since it appeared LC beat the other diets, it went ignored.
CarbSane said…
Thanks Richard, and welcome! Congratulations on your progress as well. I hope you don't ever interpret anything I write here as discouraging what's working. I bought a recumbent (actually it's really a sitting up straight) bike recently since my ankle is not cooperating lately :( so I'll look into that Sprint 8 -- thanks for sharing.

As to Eades and his sous vide, I'm not knocking the cooking method, just that he thinks it is world-changing. I'm glad you and your wife use and enjoy it, but I know it would end up an expensive space hog in my kitchen! I suspect there are quite a few like that out there.
CarbSane said…
George Henderson asked him about Med diet in comments, here's Eades' response:

" I specifically didn't address the Mediterranean diet in my post because in terms of the low-fat/low-carb debate it is neither fish nor fowl. It's not really a low-carb diet nor a low-fat diet. One would expect people going off the Med diet to increase consumption of both fat and carbs, so it would make sense that they would be somewhere in the middle."

While 35% fat isn't technically LF, 30% fat isn't really either and there's little difference between the two. So his answer is a cop-out. The MDTN group lost more weight over the long haul eating the most carbs. As pointed out in my other post, women did especially well on it at the 2 year mark.

I think your comment to George is spot on. In other diet comparison studies people do better on the extreme diets in the short term, better on the less extreme diets in the long term. Almost all the time, if there's any discernible difference.

CarbSane said…
Great advice: Don't fear food. This is one thing that I have conquered and it is the most freeing thing. Restricted diets where foods are demonized are the best way to create needless food fear. How many blog posts these days on "how to survive the holidays" having nothing to do with dealing with the usual family stuff?! It's just food! Don't give it power over you.
CarbSane said…
Glad to hear you're doing well Sue!
CarbSane said…
The MDTN was specified 35% fat, and it was calorie restricted so there was some "ratioing" going on.

One of the problems with these diet comparisons for lipid/glycemic comparisons is when weight loss differs significantly (mostly because caloric intake differed). It's pretty much a "fact" that LC -- especially initially -- involves a dramatic spontaneous reduction in caloric intake.
Unknown said…
Definitely a post in there, but as it has been argued in certain circles--and I believe Evelyn's touched on this through comments and brief blurbs in other posts--there might be a case of depressed metabolism from excessive and long-term low carbing that might also contribute towards regains.
CarbSane said…
Yes, I think this is certainly the problem for LC Cookbook Queen Dana Carpender. It's interesting, there's a woman over on Jimmy's forum Linda Genaw who has a very popular recipe site. She is one of the rare LC'ers who lost 50 lbs, is truly thin, and has maintained it. But she's also a zero carber who uses cheese as a condiment. So she's not eating all those delish recipes she developed.

The problem with LC substitutes is that they are often MUCH more caloric than what they are replacing. Almond flour has a lot of calories!

Your experience is one reason I think LC'ers tend to gain back weight even when sticking with the general program. I have some other ideas too!
Unknown said…
Seriously. If the Mediterranean diet isn't low-fat, then the low-fat most certainly isn't low fat. Do we need to guess what most of the low-fat vegan camp members call these 30% fat diets? Here's an acronym for a hint: S.A.D. Not saying that they're right, but even I don't consider that to be low-fat.
CarbSane said…
If one believes the intake data, the LF group restricted fat to the tune of about 1T to 4t a day while the MDTN group restricted it 1-2 t/day. (I note even the LC folks basically flatlined fat, claiming nominal reductions).

But taken in the context of various traditional diets with low teens and even single digit fat percent intake, 30% as LF is a joke.

Furthermore, if we're comparing macro restriction, let's do it right. You cannot restrict carbs by 90% for a month on one plan and only restrict fat by 15% from baseline. If cutting carbs in half = low carb, then cut fat in half for low fat.

Part of the problem of low fat diet advice is, despite the mockery of the low carbers, that it is indeed not low fat enough.
Galina L. said…
Doing one diet or another, people suppose to achieve some adaptation to their diets. I think , that it is possible that adaptation to a LC diet could cause some less efficient fat digestion, while adaptation to a LC will cause higher carbs sensitivity for a while.
I think that "straying" from MDTN diet is done to a smaller degree because it is less restrictive, so produses smaller weight gain.
Diana said…
Galina, I think you may be right about "gradually."

Also, I decided to do something strange. I listened to myself about the MDTN diet and try it. I happen to love the food but not in a sick, I've got to binge, way. My plan is to cycle between MDTN and moderate IFing.
Diana said…
Another thought about the MDTN diet: it's delicious without being excessively "food rewardy." By which I mean it doesn't depend on a lot of gooey cheeses, rich sauces, etc., which really set off the whole hedonic eating thing. Yeah, baklava, etc., but that's not a day to day food item. I don't know of any MDTN version of, for example, poutine, which I learned about on Stephan Guyanet's blog. YMMV, of course, but I find the MDTN diet very satisfying but not inducing to gluttony. Whereas the custom in SAD is to pile it on. More and more I find that food customs influence how and how much we eat as much as anything. I think this may be the answer to the lack of obesity among the Japanese, despite the fact that they are rich country with a technically obesogenic environment.
Diana said…
" I specifically didn't address the Mediterranean diet in my post because in terms of the low-fat/low-carb debate it is neither fish nor fowl. It's not really a low-carb diet nor a low-fat diet. One would expect people going off the Med diet to increase consumption of both fat and carbs, so it would make sense that they would be somewhere in the middle."

Let's change that to: "I specifically didn't address the MDTN diet in my post because it disproves my assumption."

Oh, and I just noticed this: "In Eades' 2011 presentation, he actually included bashing someone for an exchange he had with her in comments on his blog."

Hehehe. Wonder who that could be?
Galina L. said…
I know that my weekly exposure to buffets for tourist in Turkey and Israel didn't made me an expert in MDTN diet, but I think it is appropriate to share some observations. First big difference - the abundance of types of wheat breads, veggies, but also sweets and pastry, second - the absence of usual dressings in a salad bar. No mayo, or Zesty Italian or Cesar ones, only olive oil, plain vinegar, rather not tasty herbed yogurt (too sour and too liquid).No cheese typical for US or European cuisine - only plain very salty and lean cheeses, nothing like Parmazan or even Mozzarella, nothing like Cheddar. Coffee was served black, only milk was available for lightning (however I managed to find kaimak (like cream in honey consistency) among embellishments for pancakes in breakfast branch, it was enough for me because one time a day was my norm ). Most traditional foods like stuffed peppers of stuffed grape leaves tasted very plain and was meatless. The best choice was something like eggplant stew, lamb or fish, a lot of raw veggies with oil and vinegar, soft-boiled eggs for breakfast, it was always rice and hummus. I always had no trouble to find food I liked, what I am telling is not critique.
People in crowds looked quite thin, but wheat bellies were also everywhere, and many middle-aged and older females looked chubby as well. Guys have easier life when it comes to thin waist everywhere!
Unknown said…
What if the low carb paleo diet people have been wrong all along?? It doesn't appearto me that this diet actually works long term.
Unknown said…
You just haven't been the same since trying to take on the crowd over at Don Matesz' blog. Nah. Lol! I'm kidding. Sorry, I just happened to read that one post over on his blog that turned into a massive spam of back and forth linking between the two sides.

Sometimes, a profound confrontation actually reveals new ideas to us that may be at odds with our previous thinking, and I say *previous* thinking because our acknowledgement of those ideas already starts to imply a shift in our perspective.

Also, what defines the functionality and efficacy of a diet? Some (most) just babble on about weight loss, which I know is relevant, but not necessarily to everyone. Some individuals might actually be interested in quality of life along with good health markers and longevity. Anthony Colpo didn't moderate his stance on carbohydrate because low-carb had stalled his 'weight loss'; the guy was always an in-shape individual (a trainer, I believe) who was--at that time--suffering from other less overt issues relating to the diet that prompted him to reconsider his attitude towards carbohydrate.

So let's say that we have a diet that does show positive results in the long term when it comes to weight loss. What if the loss comes with other health compromises?

"What if the low carb paleo diet people have been wrong all along??" - Charles Garshow

Well, some cases have been made for the paleo approach, but here's what I find more important. When were they 'the low carb plaeo diet people' definitively right?
Galina L. said…
I am afraid I could make people annoyed buy repeating again and again how LC dramatically improved my health while causing a modest but stable weight loss, but it is what it is. Just please, don't tell me that eating "real food" and exercising more would do the same. LCarbers are right because they found what works for them. They are not under an obligation to figure out how everybody else should eat, but my guess it is worth trying. I guess the most who do it for a rational reason and for whom it doesn't work well would drop it and try something else .
Galina L. said…
It depends on what is causing anxiety. I spent 5 holiday seasons without a weight gain just because I exclude certain foods without much discomfort. IF is also a great tool. I used to fear unavoidable holiday weight gain, it was much worse than skipping deserts and mashed potatoes. Some people have it more easy,but at least I know how to make my life easier as well.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
If that is a response to my response, Galina, then I am afraid I will have to annoy by repeating a line from my post. "When were they 'the low carb plaeo diet people' *definitively* right?"

Your personal experience and that of others who have found carbohydrate restriction as the one and only answer are well and good. These on their own are fine since low-carbing worked for you and has worked for others--no one's contesting these points. However, by saying "LCarbers are right because they found what works for them." we're opening up the doors to plenty of similarly vague statements, since anyone can say, "[insert name of group/movement here] are right because they found what works for them."

It's like this one time when I came across this individual on the internet who went on and on about hypothyroidism and heart disease, as though that is the *only* link and that we should all just shut up on the topic over the works of Broda Barnes, get a bloody thermometer and monitor our pulses. A bit narrow-minded when there are plenty of other ways to screw up one's cardiovascular health with a humming thyroid and pulse rate, just as there are plenty of ways to deal with health issues such as carbohydrate restriction for those who don't have other options (Of course, not to be confused with carbohydrate restriction abuse for those who have no real health problem other than fluctuating large sums of weight without any sense of control while equating protein to chocolate cake).

Whenever I hear someone say, "Maybe they (any group) don't have it right?" I am always inclined to question, "Who had it 'right' to begin with?" Is it the low carbers? Certainly works for many. Is it the low-fat folk? Entire cultures thriving on what is arguably substantial low-fat (not this 30% façade). That's what I was addressing, the question that what if low-carb paleos don't have it right; the burden is on any party claiming to have a 'universal solution'.
Kade , I think Charles gave them a good run for their money over at Primal Wisdom and the debate was certainly entertaining though the opposing arguments carried more weight in my opinion. I have a lot of respect for Don Matesz and he took a lot of stick for "deserting" paleo and now will no doubt have to contend with taking even more flak as he transcends to raw vegan and openly allies himself in his videos with Durianrider.
Galina L. said…
I guess that most of the people who decided to follow a diet , are more concerned with reaching personal goals rather than achieving the perfect recreation of how some ancient people used to eat. Such people will have different diet needs based on their health. I am not arguing that they all will need a LC diet. I just want to say it is possible a LC diet will be perfect for some of them .

There is a problem with finding the universal solution for everyone.We have different needs. Probably, point #1 is being aware of ones blood sugar level (fasting and post meals), because it can get a good clue about why an individual feels one way or another. I don't imply it will cause anyone to drop carbs consumption, probably not necessary - it will cause some metabolically healthy LCarbers to get on the PHD and continue to have normal reactions on carbs, it will also help somebody like me who needs to eat a LC diet in order to have less allergies, have a better resistance to infections and manage migraines. Even my physician supports my diet because he likes the outcome. A society may thrive on various diets, but it is also possible to be a chubbier member of that society. I remember how Evelyn once dig it out that the famous Fat Luisa was a member of Pima tribe during times when travelers reported on excellent health and perfect physical shape that Pimas had then.
I have no doubt that there are several types of Paleo diets that will help an individual to maintain a good health without developing modern illnesses, and probably LC paleo fits the bill too because there were people who thrived on such diets. I remember reading about different traditional ways to eat in the "Nutrition and Physical degeneration"by Weston Price. So , LC paleos have it right on one hand, but on another hand, they are not the only ones who do.
Unknown said…
Ah, you saw that as well? Lol! Did you see the link about Genghis Khan being a vegan and killing over like a thousand people in an hour? I almost died from lung failure on that one.

Yeah, Charles worked with all the ammunition he could bring to that discussion. Now I don't know which side in the debate you mean when you refer to the 'opposing side', but in my opinion, Don's allies, if you will, had the stronger evidence and arguments. If anything, I think they gave their opposition some ideas to seriously think about.

However, let's put all of that aside for moment. Is Don seriously allying himself with Harley "DurianBoi" Johnstone, and going full raw vegan? If that turns out to be the case, then even more hilarity is sure to ensue.
Unknown said…
Dam! Sorry. That was 1,748,000 people in a single hour!

Ahahahahahahahaha! Forget modern warfare technology! They need to find a way to create a clone army of Ghenhis Khans with a mind control feature.
Unknown said…
On the topic of societies thriving with a few outliers. Well, what if something works for them but doesn't for the others? Can we acknowledge that? I think we can and we should.

So generally speaking, no one's really wrong since they're all right in their own ways.
CarbSane said…
Hey gang, a little request!

I hate feeling left out and clueless in the comment section of my own blog!! It's been a goodly while since I've been able to keep up with all of the many blogs I like to read, let alone the comments. Mostly it's dumb luck I hit on something or a reader sends me something if it's about me with a "did you see this?". So I'm not sure what's going on here! It seems we're straying from the topic here a bit ...

As to Don, his wife Tracy just completed a 1 month raw vegan challenge. Her summary is here: , and some further thoughts here:
She was inspired by Freliegh (sp??) Harley's gf. Don went mostly along for the challenge but ate some cooked starch as needed. That's my take anyway.

Whether or not I'd ever go vegan, some of their food pics are absolutely lovely and inviting looking to eat!

Galina L. said…
Yes, it is pointless to argue which traditional diet is the perfect one.It looks like we all are better off without refined carbs and modern oils, but it is not the perfect guideline for everyone to get healthy after developing some issues or being genetically more predisposed to obesity or developing Western deceases.
It is just my impression, but from the traditional healthy diets point of view,the LC Paleo looks more credible than raw vegetarian, or a strict vegetarian diet. I have to admit my prejudgment, I completely dismiss any argument which promotes a raw veganism, and an author of such arguments immediately looses any credential in my eyes.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
Yeah. She says that raw is good, but not exclusively.

Among the fruitarian drop outs, there's considerable talk about the long-term success and benefits of cooked vegan plans such as those of John McDougall and Joel Furhman in comparison to the drastic issues faced by certain fruitarian purists.
CarbSane said…
Galina, I agree the traditional diets don't tell us one that is perfect or ideal for everyone. What they do provide us with, however, are clues to the possible causes of obesity. In this regard, as to true paleo diet, we have mostly just speculation and assumptions regarding it being low carb. OTOH, we have various cultures studied in more modern times, where records were kept and we have literature and such to back up claims. In this regard, and I never got around to writing up a lot of what I found ... maybe at break. I'd agree that none were strictly veggie, so such a diet prescription is not supported by evolutionary history. But neither is extreme carb restriction and very high fat consumption. Lots of this is due to Gary Taubes dishonest portrayal of the Pima. Any information I've gathered, including at least one article in peer review journal, points to a very high carb, very low fat and protein diet. Much lower in fat than is laughingly considered "low fat" these days. Most of these diets are far closer to veganism than LC Paleo, that's for sure.
CarbSane said…
What's your dietary story Kade?
CarbSane said…
BTW, the day she ate 8 bananas for breakfast was the day I said "say wha? ... WHY???" It makes me consider doing a raw vegan challenge for 30 days. I don't think it could possibly harm me in that short period, and since I couldn't keep up that caloric pace I would probably lose weight!
Galina L. said…
I don't try to claim that a LC diet is a popular traditional diet, just that it is one of ways some prehistoric people ate. It is reasonable to assume that at least in temperate climates paleo people should be eating pretty low-carb part of the year. I didn't mean Pimas who were raising crops. I am not well versed in paleontology, of course. My disbelieve in raw vegetarianism is the result of reading Weston Price book a while ago. He is not a LC advocate, and even not an anty-gluten or anty-grains guy. Probably, I have to re-fresh some details in my memory about diets he mentioned, in order to assert how often they were low-fat. Conveniently, the book is on-line.
Galina L. said…
Go ahead, I myself wouldn't dare, even though 30 days is a short period.
Galina L. said…
Don kicked Paleos to the curb not because he is so independent intellectually, but because his wife Tracy is a higher authority . I remember listening an interview with him, and his wife feeding him lines how to answer questions. It was quite pathetic. He even removed some posts from archive like the one where he compared digestive anatomy of gorilla and human, like he revised his opinion about did gorilla has long cecum or not.
Galina L. said…
It I had to try a high-carb diet for 30 days, I would prefer plain boiled potatoes rather then eating so many bananas. Bananas have too prominent taste to eat it so much for so long, so it is easier to get tired. It is like eating Thanksgiving turkey for 30 days.
CarbSane said…
I concur. That podcast was difficult to listen to. Interestingly it was paired with Durian Rider's back before Jimmy added an extra podcast broadcast day and was publishing them up two-at-a-time.

The question is, however, whether his health has changed. It sounds like he's doing better these days, and he mentioned in that podcast that he had not been feeling well on his meat-centric diet for years. I don't know the guy, so I can't speculate either way as to his sincerity/integrity. What to believe? He says now that he has had several heath issues subside.

Please don't misinterpret me as advocating raw veganism or veganism. I do, however, think many of Tracy's food pics look delish.
Galina L. said…
Actually, I never thought for even a second that you started to promote some raw veganism. I perceive many of your posts as an invitation to not to have a rigid opinion about basically anything like OJ or any diet, be it even a raw veganism for a short while.
Who knows how Don feels now or used to feel before, it is impossible not to trust anyone, but it is slightly odd it took him so long to follow that regiment and heal his clients with what didn't benefited his health. He is not the only person who changed his stance on something. Look at Dr.Harris who stopped LCarbing, even on one of your regular visitors Gunther(something like that)who also became a vegetarian. Thous guys made a more sincere impression on me than Don. It is all just my speculations.
Unknown said…
"Any information I've gathered, including at least one article in peer review journal, points to a very high carb, very low fat and protein diet. Much lower in fat than is laughingly considered "low fat" these days. Most of these diets are far closer to veganism than LC Paleo, that's for sure." - Evelyn

This needs repeating. Constant repeating.

Just because we were reliant on some basic level of animal products, doesn't mean that traditional diets were comprised of 'clean burning high-fat meals'. In my opinion and based on some of the studies, including what Chris Kresser presented at AHS '12, about the Okinawans, they probably consume less fat and protein than most Standard American Vegans.

Also, a majority of vegans and vegetarians who I've come across, do their bit for ethical reasons and find little reason--in this day and age--to rely on animal products when some supplements along with intelligent whole-food options can be used to match the piddle requirement for animal organs and meat. Of course, all this comes under the condition that they're doing well with a robust glucose metabolism to handle a diet that's largely glucose-based, which is something most vegan diets aim to achieve. Some clever folk keep posting about how the evidence for low fat diets is 'not so much', but when considering the pathetic 30% fat content of 'low fat diets', I don't even take such posts seriously. It seems, from conventional and larger body of evidence, that vegetarianism is in closer proximity to health for the mainstream than carbohydrate restriction.

Also, Weston Price's work is interesting and carries some merit, but it is far from an authority mantel piece. I am okay with his work and book, but when it becomes The Traditional Cultures Manual: Final Edition for all things traditional, I become profoundly unamused. Not saying that this is your case, Galina.
Unknown said…
I am afraid I am quite boring with dietary stories, Evelyn. Especially since I have none; always been in reasonable shape and I'm young from a biological perspective so maybe I can get away with things, and I also quit fast food since my mid teens for political reasons.

My interest is geared towards health, quality of life and longevity, so whenever a post pops up that goes beyond 'losing x amount of weight', I am highly interested. Presently, I am interested in fully understanding this argument between the high-carb and the low-carb camps about which fuel burns cleaner and causes lesser inflammation and oxidation.

As for attempting a raw fruit diet. I think that it usually leads to weight loss for those who carry substantial fat for a variety of reasons. As you've touched on it, there's possibly a substantial level of malabsorption along with larger bulk of residual food for the GI tract to process, which contributes towards both satiety and even some level of lost calories.
Unknown said…
Thanks. Changed my email address - no longer have locarb in it.
Galina L. said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Galina L. said…
I found Weston Price book belongs to the category "worth reading", it is indeed a good illustration of relatively recent data of variety of healthy diets in human societies . I am not ready to declare it to be the source of the final knowledge, but it could make the reader think.

Kade, I cook in a grandma style because I was raised in a society when we all made our food (and often clothes) - in a socialistic economy we had less options. I cook every meal in my house because I like to do it, I don't find it difficult or labor-intense, I like my food more. My family and me briefly got enthusiastic about new interesting foods after arriving to Canada from Russia in 1995, but we quickly got cold feet and returned to what we were familiar with - soups,fermented cabbage, buckwheat, rye bread, beets salad , meat and chicken dishes and other traditional East European foods. Several years ago, after I turned 46, I found out by experimentation that LC diet worked for me quite well . Before that I tried Dr.Weill anty-inflammatory diet (because I have problem wit allergies) with limitation of meat and fat, particularly red meat and saturated fat,some meat was substituted with tofu, I ate more whole grains and fruits and veggies. The result was catastrophic. May be it wouldn't be the case for a junk-food person. Since then I am very suspicious of any advice in the line of Dr.Weill's diet and avoid tofu like a plague. Whatever people on Crete or Okinawa eat, I am not from their place, but I honestly tried. Sorry, no more mostly vegetarian low-fat foods for me. Talks about "ethical reasons" and that in modern age we should be eating something "modern" I place in the BS category right away. Nowadays I ear two LC meals a day, don't limit my fat, but I need it much less than J. Moore. I also use ketosis to manage migraines. My son and husband don't limit their carbohydrates consumption because they don't need to do it, and I found an easy way to accommodate everyone needs.
It's worth reading a lot of those vegans who really set about 'debunking' paleo. They have a lot of interesting opposing viewpoints and I've personally had a lot of my views revised when it comes to so many of the paleo "just so" stories. But at the same time they tend to veer too far to the other side of the road so you have to check some things out yourself and be skeptical. I like reading the debates a lot though, and I have seen a few good caveman smackdowns from time to time.
Btw I attempted a raw fruit challenge a few months ago. I ate fruit for dinner, then for breakfast and lunch but caved in at dinner. I can't just eat sweet or savory, I need both, especially savory at night. I had about 3 days of fruit go to waste as well. I honestly don't know how they do it.
Unknown said…
"Sorry, no more mostly vegetarian low-fat foods for me. Talks about "ethical reasons" and that in modern age we should be eating something "modern" I place in the BS category right away." - Galina

I am really not sure what you mean by that, but when someone does something for ethical reasons--that is, not out of claims that the diet or approach will cure some health problem--I find that beyond reasonable doubt, I have no face to call BS on their motives.

The whole reason why I commend some of these ethical vegans as opposed to people who equate protein to chocolate cake (or babbling Fruitarian's who make obnoxious YouTube videos) is because they don't make nonsense claims about how their choice of diet is somehow a universally magic solution in contrast to what is eaten by others; many of them admit their dietary shortcomings and successfully compensate for those through other strategies. It's funny how low-carb martyrs feel righteous when their anti-establishment approach is under scrutiny, "This is how it's meant to be because there is speculation that it is in line with our evolution and more importantly, it worked for me." Well, good; but why berate the vegetarian or vegan for essentially saying, "Well, I do this for ethical reasons, and I can also make it healthy since it is largely a healthy diet with some small parts missing for which I can compensate."
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
True points, especially on that 'veering too far off' part. I think it really applies to some of these raw fruit folk who start to delude themselves beyond any concept of compassion and health into a sense of capricious Godliness. I remember seeing a very nasty video by Freelie where she just attributed everything under the sun to irresponsible eating, and by irresponsible eating, she meant anyone who wasn't a 'physically fit' vegan, even going so far as to making a very horrendous reference to the plight of 9/11 victims.

"I like reading the debates a lot though, and I have seen a few good caveman smackdowns from time to time."

Yeah, I know I'm gonna' burn dearly for enjoying those a bit more than I should. Totally worth it, though.
CarbSane said…
Yeah, I know I'm gonna' burn dearly for enjoying those a bit more than I should.

According to my blog stats, you'll have plenty of company ;-)
kb said…
Evelyn, I had the exact same experience as you on a lc diet. In fact my weight history and gains were the same, to the pound, as well as where the weight deposited. I even lost the same amount of weight, only to gain it back and more.

I've read Eades's blog over the years - my experience with lc was probably a little more recent than yours. Eades has addressed the issue of many LCers being overweight, even many on the LC cruises (you might know who) and he attributed it to the fact that they weren't sticking to the diet. He mentioned that if you cheat with the wrong carbs while eating high fat and protein, it can be disastrous.

The only statement of your I don't agree with is: "Because I think LC can be a lifesaving and powerful *intervention* for the metabolically compromised -- especially the extremely obese and/or sedentary." I am so metabolically damaged right now, and I blame it on the LC diet. I have had all of the negative side effects sometimes associated with the diet. And it became harder and harder to keep my blood glucose normal, eventually readings classifying me as full-blown diabetic. I finally began to listen to my body - it was screaming for fruit, oatmeal and potatoes, surprisingly not cookies and potato chips.

As I gave in to my cravings, my blood sugars came down. I have commented on a previous blog of yours with my experience. I have been consciously trying to keep the fat content very low while eating carbs. That seems to keep the BG low... counter-intuitive, I know. I typically have BG readings in the 80s and 90s 1-2 hours after eating the carbs I've mentioned. Interestingly, having some fat, protein and starch at night gives me the lowest AM BG readings. I am still experimenting with that. (I usually have very high AM fasting BG readings.) This mornings reading was 110 after eating an apple with some cheddar cheese last night before bed. The day before, AM reading was 135.

I am metabolically damaged. Why would my body respond more favorably to starches and fructose without the fat throughout the day, but better to protein at night, reflecting a better BG reading in the AM? Maybe a coincidence... I haven't been experimenting long enough to make definitive conclusions yet. If we learn from our Paleo friends, maybe we are meant to eat tubers, fruits etc much of the time with an occasional feast from a successful hunt (fat & protein), which would be more indicative of real paleolithic scenario. There is so much we don't know...

One thing I do know... calories matter, and for me, being active helps. These are the only two controls that have brought me success in the past.

CarbSane said…
Hey kb -- I should have probably emphasized *can* in my comment, and while I'm at it, I'll take the opportunity to re-emphasize *intervention*, as in not intended to be continued forever. For the very obese and sedentary, LC may well be the only way that works for weight loss. But once one is reduced, it's time to move (quite literally) on. And if it doesn't work, or stops working, time to abandon ship.

One can't ignore the dramatic health/weight transformations we see for some. Heck, include Jimmy Moore v. 2005 in that statement.

As to the protein at night? I don't know the answer there, but keep experimenting doing the same thing for several days in a row and stick to what works!
Galina L. said…
I am afraid I have opened the door to long and heated debate about "ethical" eating, and on that blog people mostly talk about healthy ways to eat. However, I will try to mention my points as briefly as I can. I don't think we know enough about diet and nutrition in order to asses accurately what is missing and how we could compensate that. Most of the time the newer a way of eating or the type of food, the more chances are it contributes to the developing of health problems. So, aiming for modern way of eating is asking for troubles most of the time. It is the reason why the paleo-movement got hold on its followers - if it is hard to sort out all small details, probably the less mistakes could be made by following some particular way of eating which kept a big group of people healthy. There is enough of evidence that using supplements in order to compensate what diet is lucking could backfire. Also,in general, exposure to socialism made me highly skeptical about enthusiasts with shiny eyes who are engaged in Utopian plans to build something right, just and unnatural, because it only results in attempts to micromanage complex systems and creates a chaos in the system as a result. My exposure to vegetarians left an impression on me that many of them treat their diet as a religion, and it is the wrong way to sort-out nutritional priorities. I can give moral credit to the people who refuse to buy bloody diamonds, to catch or eat endangered fish or other animals, choose artificial fur over mink coat,refuse to buy quinola because it puts it out of financial reach of populations who depend on it,who buy food in a favorite store instead of going to Walmart,who supports and buys humanly raised meat and eggs, who recycles, does not litter, something of that nature. But not a shred of credit to vegans who are messing up with something what contributes to the global health crisis. Besides, agriculture is very destructive for environments.
Galina L. said…
The problem with abnormal fasting blood sugar levels is not rare among people who eat extremely low carb diets for a long time and who are already developed a hepatic insulin resistance. It is the clear sign that `a very low carbing is not for you, and that you are in a limbo - can't go too high and too low at the same time, must be very confusing. You can't loose weight because your liver gets too efficient in making glucose. Carbohydrate or protein snack before bedtime indeed prevents or minimizes abnormal FBS, getting more carbs into your diet is the way to go, however, it is better to experiment with optimal amount. On another side, the adaptation to LCarbing and intermittent fasting makes people less susceptible to hypoglycemic episodes . People have to tailor diets to individual needs, what works for one guy or gal, could be dysfunctional for another person.

If you want to read more about the subject, check on the Hyperlipig blog the posts about the "hepatic insulin resistance". The blog author recommends to eat about 150-200 gram of carbs a day during dinner for that reason. I keep an eye on the issue for the reason that I myself eat a very low-carb diet for theraputic reasons. So far, it works for me .
Unknown said…
There's nothing long and heated about ethical eating, I think you misunderstand, but I'll play and tell you what 'ethical veganism' means in the proper context of what I was referring to, at the end of this post.

Also, as a long-term student of sociology and even Marxism--not the utter and grossly counter-thesis travesty that occurred under Soviet demagogues--I am much more realistic and accepting of converging ideas ideas but also where they work and where they do not, having seen a bit more of this world than I would've liked to, even as a juvenile.

Now let's take a few examples:

"There is enough of evidence that using supplements in order to compensate what diet is lucking could backfire."

And do you not read the musings on this and other blogs that make valid assertions about the risks of carbohydrate restriction? Going by this logic, we should ditch all supplements and mind you, from what I have read, the vegans consume fewer supplements than certain low-carbers. Anthony Colpo addresses the subject nicely. Sorry, but if you're condemning supplements, you're pretty much condemning all circles.

"My exposure to vegetarians left an impression on me that many of them treat their diet as a religion, and it is the wrong way to sort-out nutritional priorities."

That is your anecdote, and so what if they treat it like a religion? Do we not see the same dogma in other camps? Just because people dress up their ideas with pretentious science doesn't change dogma encroachment on the idea. I am afraid over here, a valid point cannot be made without the opposition saying, "Well, so what? You guys do it as well." And the following quote practically demonstrated this very point.

"It is the reason why the paleo-movement got hold on its followers. . ."

Now the closing part: we can appeal to emotions all day long, which is exactly why I am not injecting my personal anecdotes into this discussion.

When a person dislikes the idea of slaughtering an animal to sustain his or herself, and doesn't get high and mighty about it, but is genuinely hindered by a psychological neurosis that prevents being able to come to terms with the concept of outright predation, they aren't Utopian micro-managers, they're simply self-identified ethical vegans and vegetarians who very well recognise the issues in their diets and are willing to deal with those issues. Issues, mind you, that are far less cumbersome than what is exaggerated by many who are falling prey to equally notorious dogma on the other side of the fence because of their personal experiences.

"Besides, agriculture is very destructive for environments."

So is a population of seven billion and having to feed each of them a nicely cuddled grass-fed steak. What do you propose we do about that part of the equation?
Unknown said…
Cool! We'll party hearty!
Galina L. said…
I will try deliberately to be as short as possible because I really want to avoid lengthy discussion about why eating meat is ethical. I am not against supplements, some people seems to need it for therapeutic reasons, I just in doubt,that it is reasonable to use supplements instead of eating animal products. I am just expressing my opinion when I say that I think people who don't eat meat because an animal has to be slaughtered to be consumed, are naive neurotic nuts who don't want to live in unnatural world, and worst of all , some want to change the world into unnatural way. PETA done a lot to promote modern oils and eating soy. I think in order to feed growing population humanity will have to go through a lot of changes, may be people will start eating more insects, breeding fish underground or in a high-rise buildings, explore more hydroponic options, every family will keep chickens (or even guinea pigs like people do in South America)and feed them scraps - I have now idea what the future holds. A hungry human could be quite resourceful and less squeamish. Right now civilized society wastes a lot of food and manages their food supplies in a wasted manner. The amount of land suitable for agriculture is limited, some unsuitable for plants land could be used to raise goats,some good land may require less fertilizers if used also for grass-feeding of animals. So far humanity managed to wiggle out of a tight corner.We have many under-used resources right now.

Personal experience is a valuable tool to check how one dogma or another works in a personal case. Many things sound great in theory, but don't hold water when you attempt your own N=1.
Diana said…
"More and more my diet morphed into a low-carb version of what made me overweight in the first place, it's no wonder I regained."

Diana said…
"I agree the traditional diets don't tell us one that is perfect or ideal for everyone. What they do provide us with, however, are clues to the possible causes of obesity."

If you prohibited Michael Eades from using the words "perfect" "ideal" and (his fave "optimal") he would be dumbstruck.

I kid, but I am sick of those words.

The subject is obesity. Not being 6 feet tall and having perfect teeth and being able to throw a javelin 25 feet.

Unknown said…

So no real solution at hand, but we still bash all aspects of agriculture. Treat all low fat diets as mire for the decaying masses. Sorry, that's not a solution. Some potential ideas to explore but that is all.

Also to perceive some of them as bunch of neurotic people hell bent on changing my natural way of life?! Wow. I hate to say it, but I'd have to be unnaturally neurotic to have such a hard line view of collectivising people, and also feel threatened by certain kooky fringe think-tanks such as PETA and its supporters.

This was never meant to be a heated debate, but somehow, I sense relentless defensiveness in the face of a few comments where we can acknowledge that plant-based diets get a few things right. I merely got into this to support what Evelyn stated, which is correct; in terms of more modern results and even traditional plans, high-plant and lower fat camps have the stronger evidence on their side. This doesn't mean that low-carb plans become invalidated by proxy, why anyone would think that is beyond my grasp. So despite my efforts to make my points clearly, I just can't add anything further to the 'vegans are unnatural freaks' rhetoric, and quite frankly, I'd rather not be part of such a vicious cycle. So I am done.

Galina L. said…
Usually I manage to stay more cool, sorry it didn't happened this time. I am eating my veggies, btw.
CarbSane said…
If you ask me, in Don's case it was likely that his identity was so tied to Primal and he had a book, decently large internet following, and made some portion of his income from his blog. How much I do not know, he certainly wasn't as dependent on it as Jimmy, or someone like Kresser who seems to be expanding that part and shrinking his practice (but who isn't wed to any particular dietary philosophy too closely, smart!). But it is easy to get trapped and Don seems impressionable that way. Yeah, it blew me away when he said in that podcast that it was within only a year or so that he started to have some negatives on LC/paleo.
Galina L. said…
I still get a reminder from time to time from my husband how I suddenly turned from one diet philosophy to another 180 degree. It happens, whatever the inspiration.
kb said…
Thanks for the responses. One thing that perplexes me that I meant to comment on is, why does Eades assume that if those on a lc diet, when adding carbs gain weight, it means that carbs are fattening? That is simply correlation, which he did a very fine job teaching us about in his blog. Why couldn't it be due to the fact that the lc diet causes insulin resistance and a damaged metabolism that is no longer able to metabolize carbs? I still believe that something about a lc diet triggers a state of conservation and fat storage. Perhaps in our hard-wiring, the body knows that if it is nourished by fructose or carbs, food is probably plentiful. If it is protein and/or fat, it is time to conserve... it must be winter and may be a while until we are fed again, or we may need the fat to keep warm. If this is far fetched, it may just be that it causes hormones to go off balance in some. I also experienced the increased cortisol symptoms and suffered from insomnia. I suppose this could explain the abnormal FBG. Therapeutic for some... for me, a disaster.
CarbSane said…
I still believe that something about a lc diet triggers a state of conservation and fat storage.

Bingo! I believe this too, though I don't believe it need be. I think this is the "secret" the body building types and others have known for years.

I'll definitely have more to say on this topic as time frees up a bit.

kb said…
I look forward to that Evelyn. I was into body building when I was in my twenties, way before it was common for women to work out with weights. I trained with a guy who was very accomplished in the field. Before a competition his diet was protein and very low carb, but interestingly, no fat. When he wasn't competing, he was hardly seen without food in his hands, and often it was a dozen box of Dunkin Donuts.

After my son was born and I had gotten out of shape (age 30) I went back to weight lifting and a lot of aerobic exercising - either walking at least 2 miles a day, 30-45 minutes of intense stair-stepping or aerobic classes. I ate whatever I wanted and kept in terrific shape as long as I kept up the exercise. And I'm talking nachos and ice cream on a regular basis. When I stopped the exercise, the weight started creeping on, even with constant dieting at that point. So much for the common belief among the lc gurus that exercise doesn't matter.
Galina L. said…
All that is complicated. The physiological insulin resistance is the adaptation of a body to use as little glucose as possible by tissues that can function well on ketones and fat. Sorry, I told you to check Hepatic IR, on Hyperlipid blog, but the right thing to check will be Physiological IR, I misspoke.
Your question "Why couldn't it be due to the fact that the lc diet causes insulin resistance and a damaged metabolism that is no longer able to metabolize carbs? " is an overstatement. LC doesn't damage your metabolism, only causes adaptation to a lc diet. If you start using more carbohydrates again, the Physiological IR will be reversed in several days because your body will not need to use glucose sparingly. During the adaptation your pp glucose will be higher, then rather quickly will be normal for you. I personally experimented with all that. However,I gain weight if I follow more mixed diet, even though FBS gets more low, moreover, I feel worse mentally and have less stable energy level. I am one of thous who feel my best on a very LC diet, I will want to eat more food if I eat more carbs.
Unfortunately, any diet or a weight loss triggers a state of conservation and creates such hormonal state which is favorable for a weight gain. I went on different diets during my life, I can't single out a LC diet in that regard. The more weight is lost, the more body resists it.

Judging from your BS reading you are not as very metabolically damaged as you may think. You do not react abnormally on carbohydrates, but on a LC diet your liver produces too much glucose. I guess, the people who over-react on carbs with higher than normal bs after meals, and then have a crash of bs afterwards while they follow a mixing diet, are the prime candidates for a LC diet.
Unfortunately, it is necessary to be patient and consistent, try not to panic, change things slowly and observe.
Anonymous said…
shrug. i sit on my butt all day and don't see regain since going lc/paleo/primalish over 3 years ago. i have my periods of physical activity, but i've spent most of my time lc being pregnant and lactating (currently lactating, lost all the baby weight within 2 weeks postpartum), and if anything, i've struggled to pack on the pounds at need, regardless of physical activity level.

i still have the old six pack abs, as well. and i'm in my mid30s and obvs. female.

that said, i think exercise clearly matters for many, but just like diet, it's not the whole enchilada.
CarbSane said…
How much did you lose on lc/paleo/primalish? What is your diet generally like.
Jane said…
Galina, you know Peter is changing his mind about this. I think he's realised the papers he quoted in his Physiological IR post didn't get it quite right. He's now saying the purpose of physiological IR is to avoid 'energy overload'. Stephan Guyenet and Chris Masterjohn are saying the same thing.

I rather think LC does damage your metabolism, or at least can, depending on what you eat and when you eat it. LC often means a lot of meat and/or saturated fat, which can cause gut disturbances and mineral deficiencies. I know you eat a lot of veggies and do intermittent fasting, and I suspect LC can only work under those circumstances.

Actually I can't help suspecting that your metabolism IS a bit damaged. If eating unrefined carbs makes you fat and miserable, I think it must be. I can't see any way your pancreas could be perfectly healthy. What often happens in pre-diabetes is that insulin secretion is delayed, so blood sugar goes on rising, and then too much insulin is released and blood sugar plummets.
Galina L. said…
Of course my metabolism is damaged because I can't eat even unrefined carbs in normal amounts without getting odd sugar numbers. Even beets have to be diluted with other things like pickles or sauerkraut in my salads.That it why I think KB has a more healthy metabolism than me, but yo-yo dieting got her/him in a state that resists another weight loss, which is not desirable, but doesn't equal to unhealthiness.
I acquired my metabolic problem before attempting a LC diet(I remember often being unusually hungry as a child, but traditional pattern of eating and absence of really junky foods didn't let me to get fatter than just being chubby), so I don't think it damaged my metabolism, rather allowed me to behave like other people around me - I am not a constantly hungry glutton any longer who can avoid a weight gain only by tolerating hunger most of the time. IF was out of question for me before. People want different things from their eating regiments. Some , after years of being hungry, are looking for a safe way to overeat. Somehow I avoided such trap, probably because I always wanted to be able to eat less without discomfort. In a modern environment it could be challenging to escape regular overeating. A lot of fat and meat consumed regularly during the day should be different metabolically than a high percentage of fat and moderate to small amount of meat in a diet eating sparingly. A hip of green salad with some dressing looks like a high fat meal nutrition-wise.
Thank you, I will check Peter's and others stance on PIR and update my knowledge. In my case FBS numbers increased after adaptation to fasting, especially exercising in a fasted state.
I like my veggies and can't imagine living without cabbage soups, salads and sauerkraut.
Diana said…
kb - I don't understand how you are metabolically damaged when your blood sugars are so normal. Not prying into private matters, just confused.

"I finally began to listen to my body - it was screaming for fruit, oatmeal and potatoes, surprisingly not cookies and potato chips."

Don't tell this to Michael Eades. He'll accuse you of having moist eyes. Are moist eyes a clinical symptom of anything?

"".....many on the LC cruises (you might know who) and he attributed it to the fact that they weren't sticking to the diet. He mentioned that if you cheat with the wrong carbs while eating high fat and protein, it can be disastrous."

LOL and LOLZ and LULZ. This is such classic Michael Eades bullshit.
Unknown said…
Perhaps she's speaking relatively, like before low-carbing, she had lower fasting and postprandial glucose levels. Also, I think she was speaking beyond just the blood glucose levels, which she tagged on as an additional negative factor.

I know that if down the road, I had those kind of readings, I would see that as a substantial change from what was my standard. Not saying that mildly elevated readings are something to be alarmed about, but they would be substantially out of the range of what I am accustomed to at present and that's something that would reflect a decline in metabolic health.

Judging from KB's account, she's improving on higher carbohydrate while restricting fat.
Anonymous said…
44lbs, from a starting point of about 110. i dropped the fat, gained muscle (i know it's muscle because i can carry more stuff and have better endurance) and i haven't had to do anything difficult for my current lifestyle to maintain.

my core diet is meat, eggs, veg, fruit and tubers. i occasionally have bread or rice or ice cream or sweets, but it is occasional and not really staple. if my weight is dropping too rapidly, i'll eat some mixed nuts for a couple of days or eat cheese with everything (well, not the fruit).

also occasionally these days i have raw and/or local milk with coffee or tea, but fertility seems to be messing with my caffeine tolerance, so over time it's become occasional rather than regular. i don't drink straight milk hardly ever because i am cheap, not because i have any tolerance issues. since going lc/paleo/primalish, i find as a black person i have excellent dairy tolerance and can eat any dairy around.

as a fertile, breastfeeding woman (2 live births in 3 years, second conceived while breastfeeding), i haven't found eating less than 200g/carbs daily (typical range is more like 50-100g/day) to interfere with my female processes. my kids are also rapid growers and built more muscularly than is typical for newborns/infants/toddlers (esp my first). when i do have periods, they are far less painful.

i've actually been surprised at how strong my body is despite the extended periods of inactivity. i can pretty well go out right now and race up a steep hill with no issues, even though i have spent the last year mostly sitting on my butt or in bed. i can also do plenty of heavy lifting at need.
kb said…
For one thing I would still be considered obese. Some feel that anyone who is obese and not pigging out is metabolically damaged. The recent decent blood sugars are a result of the high starch no fat diet I have been experimenting with lately. Kind of like the potato diet ala Hyperlipid. It seems to be sensitizing me to insulin. Before I read about this, i had a hunch that my blood sugar was responding more to the fat in my diet rather than the carbs. After giving in to my oatmeal craving one day, which I intentionally ate without any fat, my 2 hour blood sugar was in the 80s. On a lc diet the only way I got readings such as this was to have almost 0 carbs and after intermittent fasting for about 20 hours. And I have been off lc long enough for blood sugars to normalize if they were going to do so. During that process they hovered just under 200.

After being lc for about 6 years it seems I couldn't have a piece of fruit, slice of low carb bread, piece of dark chocolate without a fasting BG of 135. My 2 hour readings were typically in the 128 range. Not terrible I know but still indicating metabolic issues. I do like the whole food aspect of the diet but definitely feel now a balanced diet including unprocessed carbs is the way to go. Again, show me menopausal women or people in their 50s and 60s who are trim, fit and living successfully (5 years at least) on a lc diet... anyone?

I think the whole food aspect may be the therapeutic component of the lc diet. It may be the first time many who try it are eating whole foods. Lets face it, most carbs we're used to eating are processed and junk food after all.

I am still experimenting with the starch no fat thing just as a way to sensitize myself to insulin. Yesterday I ate baked french fries all day, felt very satisfied, had normal sugars and dropped 3 lbs. overnight. It happens every time I try it, although is not very practical or healthy long term I know.

As an interesting side note, I didn't mention that after my pregnancy I did go on a liquid fasting diet - remember Oprah's Optifast? Many of you will say aha, there's where the real metabolic damage came from... Mine wasn't Optifast but a similar diet sponsored through a local hospital. I honestly feel that wasn't the cause of my metabolic disorder since I did cheat quite a bit. I think the success came from educating us on calories and exercise. They claimed statistics show that only those who exercised continuously kept the weight off. They required us to walk at least 2 miles a day for that had been their minimum magic number for success in keeping the weight off. One of the MDs monitoring us was a cardiologist who claimed that cholesterol was not an issue when one was exercising almost daily. Wow... was he way ahead of his time or a moron? I now look back on that experience which I used to blame my metabolic disorder on. It was over 20 years ago and now I am trying to rekindle what I've learned there.

I know this blog is not about weight loss per se - the reason I bring this up is because when I had gotten within lbs of my goal weight, and the scale wasn't bugging any longer, solid food was introduced as whole food carbs only without fat, with pasta included for some reason. I ate oatmeal, pasta and corn mostly and again, no fat. And I started to loose weight again! As I stated previously, as my diet began to include other foods everything stayed fine as long as i continued to watch calories and exercise.
kb said…
Forgot to mention potatoes were included in the food introduction phase of my fasting diet. Most important, I don't mean to imply that fats and protein shouldn't be part of a healthy diet. I believe they should. I mostly want to point out that there are therapeutic aspects to other whole food diets. There is no magic to lc.
Galina L. said…
People have individual reactions on food regiments, in my case I got substantial improvement with allergies, immunity to infections and viruses, management of neurological disorder, PMS and pre-menopausal issues. I lost weight before in usual way several times during my life, I always ate whole foods,but never before a weight-loss resulted in such health improvement.My LC eating started at November 2007 and indeed it worked like a magic. I am size 12 now (down from 16), which is not thin, but it is ok size for 53(in a few days) years old , I am fit, could wear a two-piece swimming suit. I am not alone in my experience, most importantly - what I am doing works for me.
There are other people with similar experiences in a blogosphere, but why it should matter for you? You have your own case to manage and to find what works for you.
Diana said…
@paleotwopointoh - I realize that a website isn't the last word, but you are using up 500 cals a day breastfeeding:

You lost 44 pounds AFTER weighing 110? I don't understand.
Diana said…
@kb - thanks. Hmmm....what do you think the nature of your metabolic damage is? Is there an "iron triangle" of caloric intake, blood sugars and insulin response that creates fat metabolism? Just a thought. I come here for the stories, not the science. (Sorry, Evie!) I realize I should remedy that deficit.

@Galina, no it's not about individual reactions, sorry. It's about the typical reaction. The majority reaction. I keep thinking that your comments are all a big resistance to Calories In, calories Out.

On a personal level, I found low carb to be utter, sheer misery. I look back on it with unmitigated horror. I can't believe I stuck with it as long as I did, but that's human nature for you.
Diana said…

"kd" answered for herself, so we know what the issues are. kd raises a good point which I hope it ISN'T true: low-carbing creates insulin resistance for some. Because I suspect it's true. It may have happened with me.

Another layer to this stinky onion might be that low-carbing also engenders carb-bingeing. That's what I did: cycled between being a Good Girl who ate a VLC diet, and a flat out carb-binger. I think that more people who infest the LC forums do that than admit.

So you've got a metabolic one-two punch: low-carbing, which starves the body of a needed macronutrient and then BAMMO! A surfeit of it. Do this crazy stuff for years and you are insulin resistant....and of course, it's the carbs. Carbs kill. Sigh.

One refreshing thing about Jimmy Moore is he admits he was a glutton. The other side is that he blames this on the food pyramid. But he's honest about his huge food intake. I'll never forget the pecan log. Or was it a fried pecan log?
Unknown said…
Well, I was just using her original post to expound because it seemed self-explanatory from my perspective. Then again, I focus on odd points in discussions -- insulin resistance seems to be one of those points.

I often find that when looking at the holistic picture of each camp, the low carbers maintain low blood glucose by consuming very little glucose. This lasts for some but not for others. Certain people develop high reads because cortisol rises, which is due to the reasons you have outlined. So now the liver's making the glucose and the body's insulin resistant from the glucose restriction and the high fat consumption, so we're getting high reads. I don't find this to be a very healthy process, at least not for those who are generally in good health -- I am not questioning those who do well on such carb-restriction programmes.

Matt Stone did this post a while back where he argued that rather than suppressing glucose intake, people should be working in improving their glucose clearance. This seems to be the case for the people who get on proper low-fat, whole food high-carb regimens; they actually have better fasting glucose and some of them even have matched or better postprandial reads than their low-carb counterparts.

So having had a look at the arguments with regards to insulin sensitivity from each side, if one's going to do low-carb with high saturated fat intake, then it is probably wise to keep the carbohydrates restricted in general and to low-starch options. If one is going to give low fat a proper try, then the recommended figure is not worth the shot; one needs to try to reduce the fat into the teens or even single digits. Both approaches work for different reasons, but I think that in a typical individual's case--not one of these outliers--low-fat wins out in improving the body's ability to oxidise glucose and utilise insulin efficiently.
Anonymous said…
No, I gained about 44 pounds from an initial weight around 110. I lost the 44 pounds and gained about 10lbs of muscle.

The 500 calories thing is just a guideline and varies wildly from lady to lady. My experience is that initial lactation (first 6mo) burns more like 2-3x that amount daily. Other women with small builds like myself have had similar experiences with lactation calorie burning.
Galina L. said…
About the resistance to CICO. I think it is a huge simplification. As I told before, I found the weight-loss issues to be quite complicated. Anybody disagrees? While I think that calories matter, I don't think it is reasonable to expect accurately counting and micromanaging CICO. Do you think that you can predict the weight loss in two different individuals who weight the same, who follow the same diet and the exercise program? You can't dismiss individual reactions. What about the accuracy of the prediction that calculated negative energy balance of 3500 calories will cause the weight loss of 1 lb in everyone? Ha! Besides individual differences, sources of calories matter as well as the eating regiment.
If you find my experience different than yours, why do you think it is appropriate to disregard it? I am not alone, and you are not alone.I wouldn't last on LC for 5 years being miserable. If something is typical for an average individual, it may be no use for a menopausal female, for a person with PSOS, a person after a massive weight loss, for a bodybuilder. BTW, successfully loosing weight and keeping it of is not typical at all for people who got fat at some point of their lives. The fatter they got, the less chances they have be at normal weight again besides short periods of crash dieting which only conditions a body to be even fatter, (however most will be thinner after 70).It is what is typical to expect and it is how the majority reaction on a weight loss looks like. We are discussing on blogs how to beat the odds which are against us (except naturally thin people). As I told, I experienced with different diets during my life,I also a life-long exerciser. I was miserable before LC because I was too hungry on the diets when I tried to limit calories and compensate with chronic cardio unavoidable diet slips. I also collected some sport and overuse injuries as a result(but also got quite fit as well). Now it feels like I can finally relax, I got pretty tired from all that battle with my fat, I had enough.
Diana said…
"Do you think that you can predict the weight loss in two different individuals who weight the same, who follow the same diet and the exercise program?"

Of course not. There's REE to take into account. But there is such a thing as a typical response. If you lift weights, you'll become more muscular. But two different people will put on different amounts of muscle. Same goes for cutting calories.