las

Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin (it's evolutionary baybeee!)

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Stossel's Food Bunk I ~ Paging Dr. Attia!

Gary Taubes and Peter Attia were among the guests on a John Stossel program entitled Food Bunk a little while ago.  You may still be able to catch reruns if you so desire.   Long story short, Stossel discusses the role of government in regulating and recommending foods and nutrition.  It's worth a watch if you can find it, more for some of the other guests and information.  But thanks to Eenfeldt, I was made aware of the 8-minute appearance of the Lipidic Duo of Taubes and Attia, speaking of course on how our government is/was wrong about fats and the nutritional guidelines.  (I've decided I need a new Lego superhero look for Attia, the old one just had too much hair, please excuse the coloring on the face/head there, it was a quick job.)


Peter Attia is a doctor!  A hot shot Stanford educated MD, as Stossel points out, who did his residency at Johns Hopkins!
Stossel mentions Peter Attia is a doctor who went to Stanford (again), but Attia {paraphrasing}:  "Everything I learned about nutrition in medical school was wrong"
Taubes {paraphrasing}:  "Did Peter lose weight on low carb because he's some weird Stanford educated doctor, or is there something to my whacky theories?"
OK folks, that was three, count 'em, three, times that it was mentioned that Peter Attia is a doctor!  I might be imagining things here, but I perceived a slight flinch the first time Stossel mentioned this.  That's because, as I've pointed out, Attia is not a practicing doctor, nor has he ever been one after completing his residency and apparently a fellowship.  He, by his own account, left medicine.

I think this is important folks.  In this community we have various types of experts and celebs, and a fair number of them garner some clout because of the letters MD.  I do not want to downplay the value of such a degree -- you have to be "smarter than the average bear" to get into medical school, and smarter still to get into Stanford.  But as Attia, and Vernon, and Kruse, and Shanahan, and all the rest of these folks remind us again and again, the "knowledge" they are touting and sharing was NOT taught in medical school.  I realize everyone likes to feel smarter than their doctors who learned nothing about nutrition because they've read a book by someone who attended a few hours of classes in some generally unaccredited program ... or worse still, read GCBC.  But if you think your doc learned nothing in med school, as the guru docs keep telling you they didn't, then the education half of the MD  is irrelevant and one needs to look beyond the education per se to what the person has done with said education/background.  

In this regard, the doctors Eades and all the docs listed in my previous paragraph except Attia have clinical experience, some decades, on their resumes.  In Vernon, Shanahan, both Eades, and let's add Rosedale and Phinney to the list, we have doctors who have worked with patients directly as weight loss physicians.  Whether there's follow-up and accountability or not, we often hear about the numbers of patients they've treated and the results attained.  This much is unassailable "expertise" to the extent that it is related forthrightly.  Unfortunately most of these folks like to pose as scientists when they advocate for LC, and in each of the named cases, have provided significant material for this blog to debunk.    

But Peter Attia not only doesn't have a decade of clinical practice to ply off of, he appeared to be rather proud of that fact in a comment he made here a little ways back:
I actually did 5 years of surgical residency and a 2 year fellowship in surgical oncology. Perhaps this isn't enough clinical training to be a “real” MD, in your opinion, but I'm not sure what 10 more years of clinical practice would have taught me other than the conventional wisdom I learned about in medical school was probably wrong for most people, myself included. Does one need an MD or a PhD to have a point of view on this topic, or even to have something valuable to say?
Like Kruse, Attia is (was) a surgeon.   In his JumpStart MD presentation, Attia discusses his disenchantment with medicine and why he left it.  In a nutshell he felt he was always treating the result and not involved in preventing diseases.  I might suggest that if that is where his passions lied, cutting out cancers may well not have been the likely choice of specialty, because by the time you see the patient they are long past the prevention stage, duh!  But while his motivations and aspirations are irrelevant, it is relevant that he doesn't have the years of treating patients to bolster his case.

I find it truly horrifying that any doctor would learn their biochemistry/physiology (or relearn it or whatever) from a science journalist.  Any science journalist.   Attia has an interesting background with math/engineering undergrad before going to medical school.  He didn't have the "luxury of the premed education", which I take to mean he didn't get much if anything in the way of life sciences until medical school.  He was looking forward to medical school because finally he hoped to learn all the things he had been trying to read about on his own and "not getting anywhere".  His words.

And yet he describes med school as a social bonanza but "intellectually it was the low point of [his] life".  Doesn't that make you feel good about going to the doctor next time?!   OK, let me get this straight.  He talks about being interested in this stuff since he was like 13 and excited to finally learn it in medical school.  It's Gary Taubes who finally sets the intellectual gears in motion which is troubling in and of itself.  The ever inquisitive doctor reads the typical passage in his biochemistry book (Stryer, same author, later edition than one of my undergrad biochem texts) and decides to do what?  Investigate further in more formal academic channels?  No.  He decides he must meet with a science journalist to discuss all the questions GCBC left him with!  This is especially disturbing because Gary Taubes' journalism on the matter consisted mostly of decades old text books, interviews with scientists he openly disrespects and, when referenced, speculative peer review literature he fails to follow up on past the early 80's.

I think I'm beginning to understand how Gary Taubes is more influential in the medical community than in the scientific one if Attia's musings on the medical profession are at all representative.  He weaves a very convincing tale, and does so with the sort of authoritative tone that leads one to trust he's telling it straight.  If you read GCBC, as someone once said, you're probably spitting so many nails at "the establishment" after Part I, he has you primed to believe just about anything come the sections on insulin and obesity.  Throw in a few cherry-picked quotes from big name scientists in the field, and who would question it?  I would hope more doctors would, however.  If only because it makes no sense on such a basic level.  Most of these doctors are around my age or older and thus grew up during this obesity epidemic.  They all know we as kids ate carbohydrates and didn't get fat.  Even sugar, refined starches, and the supposedly microbiota-altering acellular carbs.  They also, hopefully, are worldly enough to see that while we have the so-called paradoxes where folks like the French eat more fat yet are slimmer, we also have those same paradoxes for carbs.  I would argue billions more.  

Not only did Attia bite on Taubes' offerings, he littered GCBC with post-it tabs and highlighted passages and had 20 pages of questions for Gary!  Really??  It is for this reason that I remind my readers about Attia's qualifications.  He's certainly not heading NuSI in the capacity of doctor to right the wrongs of government botched food science.  Sorry, John Stossel.  This wouldn't be all that shockingly appalling were it not for the fact that towards the end of Part I of the JSMD lecture (video above), Dock-Tor Attia manages to get some very basic and uncontroversial concepts in biochemistry/metabolism of fats so flat out wrong.  That's what you get, I suppose, when you've forgotten everything you learned in medical school and listen to Taubes and Volek ... or perhaps he was just high on waxy maize at the time of this talk.   Who knows, I think this was before he took up the UCAN.  It is inexcusable, especially in the context of his bashing of all those people who just never "understood the ramifications" of all the book learning.  Sigh.  We need to declare war on insulin!!!  I think I'll probably have to blog more on this some day....

So basically in Peter Attia, MD, we have just another n=1 "LC Success Story" type going off about his own self-experimentation and experience.  So what is that, and what does he tell Stossel's audience?:
Peter Attia used to believe all of what he learned and shared it with his friends, and applied it to himself, and then found himself 40 lbs overweight eating what were supposedly good foods for him.  
Peter Attia got more "not thin" eating whole grains.
That's not exactly true by his own account.  Here's his weight loss timeline:
  • September 2009 – I eliminated most sources of sugar in my diet (for a definition of “sugar” click here) six days per week. One day per week I let myself eat whatever I wanted.
  • February 2010 – I switched all white sources of carbohydrates to brown sources whenever possible (e.g., brown rice over white rice, brown pasta over white pasta), switched over to carbs that were higher in insoluble fiber, and eliminated sugar altogether.
He continued this through 2010.  
  • January 2011 – I reduced starch intake to one serving per day, but continued to eat fruits and vegetables in an unrestricted manner.
  • May 2011 – Reduced carbohydrate intake to less than 50 grams per day and reduced protein intake to approximately 120 grams per day, entering a state of nutritional ketosis.
There's a more detailed progression around the 10 min mark of Part 2 of the JumpStart video.  I would note as well, that he provides some body composition data around the 12:15 mark.  I note that in May of 2010 he's 172 and 23 lbs body fat, and in August of 2011 he's 170 and 13 lbs body fat.  Yeah, his composition is better, but one can't separate that from changes in his fitness routine.  I would also note that he regained a tad between the 9/10 and 1/11 scans, looks like 3 lbs, while he was still eating the evil "brown carbs" in dangerous terroir, and yet his fat mass remained at 24 lbs so insulin wasn't locking away his fat but rather he built a bit of lean mass.  Now clearly he's achieved some interesting body mass changes since going nuttyK, but again, anyone who peruses his site can tell he's dedicated himself to more than just an extreme diet to accomplish this.

But something else strikes me and I'm pretty sure many of you astute readers have spotted this as well.  It's a tale we hear quite often -- I was eating all the right things! -- In the context of the Stossel show, he was eating what he'd learned to eat because the government told him to eat that way so that's what the medical school he attended taught him.  Was he?  NO.  If I've said it once, I've said it 1000 times, pretty much everyone who claimed to eat the food pyramid did not.  And if we can't count on a *doctor*, educated at Stanford no less, to supplement his food choices with just a little knowledge of basic nutrition outside of what the government tells us -- e.g. nutritionally potatoes are a starch and not a "veggie" in the spirit of the USDA guidelines intent -- maybe we're all doomed!   I learned that about as long back as I have memories ... Thanks Mom!  

But if someone makes a major dietary change, to cut out sugar except for one day a week, what does that tell you?  He was eating a considerable amount of sugar before.  This is not what the government tells us, right or wrong.  He said he wasn't a candy fiend beforehand, and yet he must have been eating some considerable amount for it to make a difference and have him feeling better in a few months.  And then five months later he makes a second major dietary change switching out refined "white" starches for "brown".  In other words, he was not eating "whole grains" or "mostly complex carbs" after all.  Again, we can leave the argument on the wisdom of grain consumption aside for now as it is irrelevant.  The point is Peter Attia was eating the true SAD -- junky refined starches and sugary foods.  Michael Phelps lite if you will.  Which just goes to show that you can gain weight on a low fat diet (if it was indeed as low fat as he claims) and exercising 2-3 hours/day if you eat a lot of calorie-dense refined carb crapola.  But make no mistake about it, his diet circa September 2009 was not by anyone's definition healthy.   How can he claim he was eating mostly "good", "complex carbs" before, then make a big deal about changing his diet by cutting out sugar and then refined starches?   

Let's be clear, I'm not accusing him of lying.  I save charges like that for where they are truly warranted.  Rather, I believe he's probably suffering from LCIA (low carb indoctrinaire's amnesia).  There are no scientific studies on this, good or otherwise, but anecdotally, LCIA afflicts over three-quarters of first time LC success stories, and persists in over half of long term adherents, successful or otherwise.  This form of amnesia causes low carbers to misremember the quality and quantity of their diet before they read the low carb Bible and joined the converted.  The SAD is not the USDA-FoodPyramid-MyPlate.  In Attia's case, according to his website, even when he went LC, he was not LC by any standard as his carbs were scarily close to 300g, and well over that 151st gram!  And yet the results he discussed at JumpStart MD were from before he went nuttyK. 

Here's where I'd be concerned were it me.  He very seriously looks at the audience and sums up that he increased his calories from around 3000 to 4500 cal/day.  That's a lot, both in terms of calories (1500) and percentage (50%).  And he didn't exercise any more.  But he lost weight.  Well, you got me there Peter.  You are either Mighty Metabolism Mouse in human form, or you have a serious fat malabsorption issue, and neither is good.  I note with all his testing and taking pictures of his food and having someone else analyze it, he never had his RMR tested.  He has essentially preserved his lean mass, but now requires 50% more energy to fuel it with ketones.   That sounds intelligent ...  He launches into the anti-CICO rant.  

But it gets good here -- The SCIENTIST Attia has concluded that the difference here is that his resting metabolic rate has gone up.  He goes into this in detail, so I'm not misunderstanding him, and says his calories burned in digestion, exercise and daily living activities are constant and RMR must have gone up.  And oh!  You can get this measured.  But did he?  Apparently not as he offers no "proof" and makes no mention as he does with body composition and his lipid profile.  No, instead he just offers us  the fuel partitioning argument and how he's now burning more fat at rest because of his low insulin levels.  He wouldn't have to guess if he had his metabolic rate measured.  Or how about his caloric expenditure with exercising.  He's altered that routine so it's awfully unscientific of him not to have assessed that.  He offers up no study that shows even a correlation between fasting insulin and metabolic rate.   All of the arguments, even he essentially makes this one, are for changing energy substrate, not amount, so he's burning fat instead of glycogen, not that he's burning more.   

I wonder why if this has been so great, he has increased starch consumption in the form of nuts and UCANned corn (© Lerner).  These will provide glucose to burn irregardless of whether or not they spike insulin.  

Speaking of doctors, however, I'd love to see him and L.Ron duke it out!  Peter is singing the glories of nuttyK on the premise that he needs to eat more, a ridiculous amount more, to maintain his weight but he's leaner, while Rosedale will tell you that you want a lower metabolic rate and this is the beauty of carb restriction.  Rosedale thinks it is preferable to run a little on the cold side and idle-your-engine through life, and you'll live longer like a teeny e. coli consumer.  

OK, I'm breaking up now, so back to Stossel to tidy up and put the lid on this first installment.  Stossel seems most impressed that Attia lost weight eating fat.  Attia leans back and models his midsection as proof.  C'mon John.  You've been around long enough to know that people can lose weight on the Atkins diet.  Surely somewhere along the line in your storied career you looked into the diet industry.  If you want to counter the validity of government "approved" science, you and your producers can do better than to come up with these two posing as arbiters of what is "good science".  But at least they won't be wasting your, my and everyone's taxpayer dollars to fund their research, and at least you, me and everyone else are not paying their salaries.  Oh ... except NuSI is a 501(c)3 so we probably paid for part of their trip out to appear on your show in the form of a tax write off.   When the first annual reporting of where the money is going comes out, maybe John will be interested in that  ;-)


More on that science and Gary's performance next time!  

27 comments:

Alex Aylward said...

Hello Evelyn,

Nice post! This is a bit off topic, but what do you consider to be a healthy metabolic rate? I've always thought high = good! Cheers.

karl said...

My first time here.

When I see lots of ad hominem attacks, I suspect the one talking is lacking the facts they need.

After wading through your site (broken links on the main page BTW) I noticed a few things:

There seems to be some confusion between what is a healthy diet and what is a healthy diet for someone that has T2D ( the pandemic of our time ). When I see people assume they know the definitive cause of the T2D pandemic, it is clear that they do not understand the question.

There is a lack of understanding between epidemiological studies vs experimental studies and the conclusions we can honestly draw from them here.

I was hoping for something more.




Laura Izbicki said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Swede said...

This was the first year I have participated in the "Movemeber" movement. For those unaware of what that means, it is a men's movement whereby during the month of November, we grow a mustache to raise awareness for men's health issues. This would include things like prostate cancer, testicular cancer, gynocomastia, and excess carbsinthedietkillemia.

I have groomed a masterful mustache during the past 35 or so days, and it has changed my life. After watching that video, I noticed two things: 1) Gary and Peter do not have any mustache, and 2) John Stossel has a Pomeranian growing on his upper lip.

It then begs the question: why is John Stossel so succesful, despite a life of eating carbs? The answer is simple. The mustache filters them out. Ergo, all males should sprout an upper lip garden now and reap the benefits.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

:-)

What ... no picture?

lian johnston said...

So, the government reccomended that we decrease our fat percentage from 40% of calories to 30% of calories and that's what started the obesity epidemic. Do they actually believe that if they revised their position and told everyone to cut back on carbs and increase fat that it will solve the problem?

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Hi Alex, Thanks! I don't know that one can determine a single healthy metabolic rate ... for one thing it is SO variable between people, even seemingly similar individuals. However if I'm attempting to alter my metabolism I'm going for higher not lower, lower being associated with less lean (functional) mass and lower body temperature (something I do not enjoy).

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

I'm sorry to disappoint karl. Since Stossel did the appeal to authority with Attia, and he's cofounded this NuSI organization. I'm all for Stossel having seen the light on government regulations and consumer protection, but too bad he went soft on looking at what's being peddled in the industry and the backgrounds of the purveyors.

As to T2 diabetes, you'll likely find more here than you ever care to handle. Check out the T2 diabetes label. If you're left wanting I'll know by being unable to keep up with your questions and challenges in the comment section regarding the scientific research I discuss.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Welcome lian! That would appear to be the case. Interestingly Attia acknowledges that part of the problem with existing free-living studies is that when you prescribe a diet, subjects don't always follow it. Ummm ... there's more incentive to follow a diet when part of a study than when the government tells you to do something!! So first we have to presume we did listen to the government that did not tell us to increase our consumption of sugary beverages and eat food prepared outside the home more often. If what you say is true, if we reverted to a 40% fat and less carbs, that should fix the problem. Right? These guys think we should be eating 60,70,80 and up percent fat.

Diana said...

I didn't see the show and I'm not going to but I know about Stossel. He's a nutcase libertarian who thinks that government regs. are bad, therefore anything that contravenes them is good. Of course there is a legitimate argument about limited government, and checks and balances, and what if anything government should be doing about food choices, but Stossel isn't rational about that, anymore than Taubes and Attia and Eades are about carbs.

Unknown said...

I am striving to develop the ability to vary my metabolic rate solely through the POWER OF MY MIND.

I will be able to switch from high to medium to low with a single thought.

A beast that can switch from carbs to fat and then back to carbs at will is the best of all possible beasts.

Sherry said...

I like my moderately low carbohydrate diet, but I never suffered from LCIA. It is true that many low-carbers will have the perception that once they switched to low-carb, they started eating a lot less. Maybe they are correct.

But I do not suffer from that delusion, because I was not raised to be a snacker. My family culture did not support that. I am eating every bit as much food as I did before, but the macro-nutrient percentages have changed quite a bit.

I was also a person who suffered from those annoying hunger pangs a few hours after my breakfast of Cheerios and bananas, but I endured them until it was time to get my lunch out of the staff kitchen's frig, around 12:30 PM or so. While fixing my dinner, I did snack on saltines quite a bit, sometimes eating 3/4 of a sleeve (oh, those were the days!).

There was a study in 1976 in Consumer Reports that looked favorably on Cheerios because lab rats thrived on that cereal. Can I help it that I was influenced by their report? I will not kid myself, and say that I ever ate anything but the SAD, except for 1.5 years here and there, during times of experimentation.

I also believe many low-carbers who truly care about getting high-quality foods just "assume" that they are spending less, because they are now eating less, but perhaps I should not go down that trail. If you are doing this thing the best you know how, you'll pay more for high-quality, fresh ingredients (groceries have really gone up in price, too).

I'm tempted to believe that low-carbers who do everything "just so" like to talk about all the money they save, in the same way that golfers say that their golf score is around 75, when they only shot a 75 a few times in their life.

Sorry if I offended anyone about the $$ part, but I think it is all too easy to delude yourself in this area.

By the way, I like Peter Attia, M.D. He says he has a wife "whose body does not know how to store fat." He at least realizes that there are individual differences.

Kade Storm said...

Stossel seemed quite cosy in the company of Taubes and Attia, which is interesting. This was probably the case because despite their potential differences over the science, they could easily just back and randomly slam government policy from dawn to dusk, because that's what really matters: political talking points. Although to be fair, Attia showed some decent levels of restraint when it came to addressing the topic of "bad science".

Also, I know that Evelyn kind of addressed this in her post, but I find it awfully interesting--ironic, more like it--that while Taubes comes across as a reasonably anti-establishment individual, well-suited to the backdrop of Stossel's show, he is also in league with the show's natural political opponents. It's hard to overlook his alliance with individuals like Lustig who are using those very elements of the 'evil and intrusive -- bad policy making nanny establishment' to conjure up further dietary policy. I guess it is only intrusive government when the policy goes against one's own biases, but when they're in favour, it's a good move for the greater good. Typical.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Another interesting thing was the video clip of the Senator who said we don't have time to sort this all out. Now I read and listen to way too much Taubes and about the community, but I could swear I've heard someone -- and I'm pretty sure it was Taubes -- say the very same thing about LC. Basically we can't wait for all the evidence to come in, we need to change this now! On this point at least I have to give Naughton cred for sticking to his beliefs.

Mario Vachon said...

I have absolutely nothing but respect and admiration for Attia. Of all the various nutrition and health blogs on the web, his has been by far the best for my dollar. His blog at "eatingacademy.com" is superb and virtually every post he has there is worth reading. He truly adds value and unlike other blogs spends very little time trying to tear down others.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. The material on waroninsulin.com left much to be desired. His recent blogging is promoting superstarch.

If I told you I had a degree in biology from a well respected institution and that I took most of my classes with highly competitive students in a 6-year combined undergrad/med school program and then told you that that education was the intellectual low point of my life, what would you think of that? Yet that's what Attia tells his readers. So he "relearned" what he knows beginning with the flawed and often outright misrepresented writings of a science journalist with no medical or life sciences background and no experience actually doing science himself.

lian johnston said...

If the government was to tell everyone to eat way more fat, even up to 60% of calories while decreasing carbs, I'm pretty certain that would make things even worse if anything. Let's say the government did give out that advice and everyone increased their fat and became even fatter, would they blame the advice? Or would they point out that the advice isn't being followed because fast food and soda consumption is through the roof?

I'm pretty sure we'd also have a much bigger line up of people claiming the governments advice made them fat.

kb said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kb said...

Stossel: "You eat lots of fat... and you're a doctor!"

Pa-lease! Doctors can be schmucks ya know... oh... you say you didn't know that?

Evelyn, I didn't look at all the videos but a bit of trivia for you. Stossel is/was a stutterer. I remember watching him on 20/20 talking about it at length, how much of a struggle it was and how much pain it brought him. Did you know it is thought by some that a high fat lc diet is therapeutic for that condition? They believe it has to with brain function on that type of fuel. Again the correlation thing - others claim stuttering is due to an allergy to wheat or gluten intolerance. See how lc gets the credit when it only indirectly has to do with that? Not saying this is reason for Stossel'support for these two, but likely.

I am so sick of the manipulation. And as far as Attia's higher metabolism... yeah, I had that too from a lc diet. It's called hormones gone awry (Taubes words - ok so he wasn't referring to lc). It's called too much cortisol production resulting perhaps the feeling of more energy if you're Attia and being super positive, but to many it's more like anxiety, insomnia and hair loss. The point is, not a good thing on a regular basis.

Kade Storm said...

I love high cortisol. It gives me a false sense of zen and nigh immortality. . . Until it all comes crashing down like a nasty demolition job.

Kade Storm said...

I don't follow these guys much but if that is the case then Naughton would be worthy of credit. I mean, I don't agree with some of the politics and even the philosophies that I read from that circle, but I can take consolation in acknowledging those who remain consistent in their tune and don't just half-heartedly embrace a political angle out of a need to satisfy a personal convenience.

Kade Storm said...

Hi Evelyn,

Putting aside the dispute over metabolic advantage, Carbohydrate-Insulin Hypothesis, body fuel preference, etcetera, what are your thoughts on Attia's approach to the topic of atherosclerosis? He blogged about cholesterol at great length.

http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-part-v

It's a whole series, but in part 5 (the one linked above), he seems to have taken on a reasonable tone as opposed to the excessive denial and obsession with large LDL size that is common among certain low carb promoters and followers who demonstrate poor lipid results over the long term.

Justin said...

Do low-carbers commonly say that they save money on food? That has not been my experience at all.

I have lost dozens of pounds in the last half-year (from 270 to about 190) on a low-carb diet. My grocery bill has gone up dramatically. I am not buying pasture fed beef (or even steaks at all) or expensive fish. However, I am not eating inexpensive rice, potatoes, pasta, pancakes, breakfast cereal, home-baked bread, or breaded fish-sticks either. Carbs are cheap. Cutting them out is not going to save you money unless you cut your food intake substantially.

My sense is that I eat about as much as I used to. I may snack less though. I certainly feel hungry less often and less urgently. Also, while I used to skip breakfast a fair bit, I now eat big breakfasts and sometimes skip lunch.

I am not a low-carb fan boy though. I have still not decided what I think about the science. Both sides seem too committed to their positions to trust implicitly. What I am doing is certainly working for weight loss but longer term health may be more complicated and I am constantly researching before I decide what direction my long-term path is going to take. Right now I am reading John MacDoughall's new book ("The Starch Solution") so even my pop-culture references not exclusively low-carb.

John Meyer said...

Just get blood work done periodically if it worries you. Proof is in the numbers. I have seen no downside to eating low carb in the 2 years I have been doing it.

John Meyer said...

68% of Americans are overweight and obese, I don't think anything the government does can make it much worse. I for one say lets try some new science because obviously this whole fat free thing hasn't worked at all.

carbsane said...

How about just science, not new made up pseudoscience and "scientific" speculation in the guise of a legit hypothesis?

Blogger said...

EasyHits4U - Your Free Traffic Exchange - 1:1 Manual Exchange Ratio, Business networking. FREE Advertising!

Post a Comment

Moderation is currently on. Thanks in advance for your patience.