Ragz

I will, thank you--countin' all them calories is hard work--and continue to advise others to do the same, as low carb works so well and is based on better science than that of the ol' calories in/calories out. We've had some happy conversions here from formerly overweight or insulin resistant forum members who had found that high carb doesn't work for them.

Don't forget the pasta & pizza, man. And do remember the reference I gave you above:

Why Can Some People Eat Anything They Want and Never Gain a Pound?

Counting calories? Whose counting calories? I eat as many calories as I want. I certainly don’t try and achieve a calorie deficit if that’s what you are saying. Nor do I buy into the concept of burning more calories than I consume, I am in agreement with Taubes on this. I don't really know of anyone doing a plant based diet that is trying to achieve a calorie deficit but perhaps they are out there.

And pasta and pizza? Two high fat foods (via the sauces and cheese) filled with processed refined carbs, even the vegan varieties. I will eat some brown rice pasta on occasion with no oil pasta sauce and filled with veggies, but generally I stay away from refined carbs. These are totally different foods from whole plant foods like tubers or minimally processed foods like brown rice and legumes.

Ah yes Gary Taubes eternal question: ‘Why We Get Fat?’. I can provide one reason: BECAUSE WE ARE EATING MORE FAT.

SHOCK! None other than YOU can provide "one" reason! Alright then!

Third_Eye_by_Mikhail_G.jpg

I'm sure that the NYT will be eager to publish your finding. Why haven't you submitted? Can't seem to find you in print. This should go over big in Chinese cultures--kinda like drinking snake blood enhances virility.

But then NYT might discover that what you think is your reason isn't actually a reason at all, despite the fine capital letters, but merely a little unsupported opinion just makin' you feel all warm & fuzzy. You wouldn't have (cough) failed to mention something, now would you have?

Suddenly my faith is affirmed in Harvard & Stanford, whence Taubes took technical degrees before publishing his extremely well-researched books to challenge the ol' status quo.

And I could easily do a Google search and find plenty of people talking about how low carb diets have ruined their health, gave them constipation, gave them headaches, increased their cholesterol etc etc. So. Boring.

But you see despite this impressive search ability, you just couldn't find anything negative on--of all things--fruitarianism. Lemme help ya some more, man:

Success Stories

Most inspiring, I say! I hope forum members needing help go there and read about others who've done so remarkably well on low-carb.

I would ask you to supply proof that Durianrider has high triglycerides, and high LDL, and no B12 in his blood tests, but I have to work, and since I make considerably more than 500 baht per hour it is not worth my time to continue going in circles with you.

But, alas, you've already used up your share of the charitable spoon feeding allocated for the learning impaired! So you'll have to find it yourself. Not to worry: among your skills, we've learned, you can "easily do a Google search." Heh. If you manage to do so successfully in this case, you'll come back to point out that, ah ha! his HDL is looking pretty good. And I'll simply reply that with the insane amount of exercise he does, it should be even higher. But nobody here is going to be imitating that, so it's irrelevant.

Now, since you brought it up, I can't understand why you have such low "earning power" that you're still, uh, working? Must be, according to your standards, some unacknowledged problem about "open mind" and ability "to learn something?" Me, I retired to the beach early. Low stress--it's so good for one's health too.

Cheers!

PS: Women's Health--it's a start for ya, man. Denise Minger--when she's relevant on a specific point I'm discussing, I'll bring her in, as I have re: The China Study and her book Death By Food Pyramid. I don't follow her daily as she writes too much about herself that one has to wade through. You wanna bring her in on something, as you have, go right ahead. But you're shadow boxing again . . . .

Cant believe I just got into a flame war on the internet over diet, this is absurd. I believe the Gary Taubes diet will lead to heart disease and I believe he uses his data selectively and deceptively, you don’t. I have found something that works for me and so have you apparently. So enjoy your bacon and your beach retirement, for me it’s still hard work and potatoes, which isn’t so bad either.

But, I am pointing out that other people eating high carb diets, indeed diets of only fruit, are not experiencing health problems and are displaying normal blood tests.

But you've shockingly failed to mention that some are experiencing health problems and, alas, aren't displaying normal blood tests. Even the foremost advocate, durianrider, friend of Banana Girl, has high triglycerides, LDL, and no B12 (so taking B12 injections). A few examples:

So all in all, this healthiest lifestyle ever gave me the shining gifts of health: Low energy, pale skin, anxiety and a mouth that looked like battlefield ruins. But I could definitely brag about how my poop didn’t smell, or that my urine was crystal clear! Raw vegan ftw!

--http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/3484206816/interview-with-an-ex-vegan-erim-bilgin

I was a raw food vegan for almost a year which I loved and then switched to an all fruit diet because I wanted to lose an extra 10 pounds of unwanted fat. I was only on this diet maybe four months and did not shed 1 pound. I also run marathons and participate in triathlons so it couldn't have been from not exercising. They also, claim that their diet can help with people that have diabetes. Well, shortly after I strated the diet I was diagnosed with prediabetes. I continued the diet and monitored my sugar just to see what was happening within my body. My sugars were going sky high even with very low amounts of fruit. I decided to ditch the fruit diet and placed myself on a low carb diet instead in order to get my sugar levels under control. Amazingly my sugar levels dropped dramaticlly. I am still prediabetic levels but at least they are way lower. I will always have to stick to a low carb diet now.

--http://paleohacks.com/fruit/your-thoughts-on-the-30-bananas-a-day-site-1071

I was a vegetarian for years and I was overweight, developed diabetes and high blood pressure. I switched to a high fat carbohydrate restricted diet and lost the weight and the diabetes and the high blood pressure.

--http://www.marksdailyapple.com/vegan-island/

I think it is important to present options for people who are concerned that high dietary fat will cause heart disease.

This is a very important thinking for our forum members that you've arrived at. Yes, let's do a better job of reassuring those concerned--and presenting options. As a starting point: Ta da! Your hero:

What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?

Then a few articles presenting options:

How Steve Pavlina and Raw Veganism Almost Killed Me

My Escape from Vegan Island

Vegan Lies And Their Stick Figure People

http://www.womenshealthmag.com/weight-loss/80-10-10

http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/3484206816/interview-with-an-ex-vegan-erim-bilgin

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-can-some-people-eat-anything-they-want-and-never-gain-a-pound/

Ah yes Gary Taubes eternal question: ‘Why We Get Fat?’. I can provide one reason: BECAUSE WE ARE EATING MORE FAT. Ah yes it’s the percentages and the total is irrelevant....sorry scratch that.

And I could easily do a Google search and find plenty of people talking about how low carb diets have ruined their health, gave them constipation, gave them headaches, increased their cholesterol etc etc. So. Boring. I could also post a list of studies pointing out the dangers low carb diets, and the dangers of eating more meat. Again, so boring. You see, I don’t turn a blind eye to other people’s positive experiences just because they don’t fit my agenda. Some people lose weight and control blood sugar on low carb diets and there are definitely some advantages to switching from a standard American diet to some varieties of low carb diets.

I shouldn’t have to explain this to you, but diet is a complex subject, no one can triumphantly quote an article ‘Women’s Health Mag’ and proclaim a slam dunk victory in an internet forum. There are advantages and disadvantages to many diets. All of these diets are based on hypothesis. Open your mind a little and you could learn something and perhaps even increase your earning power.

But what I do find interesting is how you no longer point people in the direction of Denise Minger. I mean, a month ago Raw Food SOS would have been at the top of any anti vegan list of propaganda that you presented. Any reason for this? I suppose some of her views no longer fit with your agenda. Inconvenient really. I know you will probably now be forced to post a link to Raw Food SOS and do some lawerly acrobatics about how her opinions never really changed etc (hint: use the phrase ‘straw man’), but nevertheless it is all very interesting. It’s so inconvenient when our heroes no longer support our agendas.

I would ask you to supply proof that Durianrider has high triglycerides, and high LDL, and no B12 in his blood tests, but I have to work, and since I make considerably more than 500 baht per hour it is not worth my time to continue going in circles with you.

You charge 500 baht per hour for that drivel? I want my money back.

An expected response of typical grace from a troll whose assertions (not arguments, which require facts & rationality) have been refuted and shown up as nonsense. Nothing new there, pal.

And you got the special spoon feeding rate for the learning impaired. It's merely one of my many charitable contributions. Sorry, can't go lower for you.

We all know you're just trolling. Maybe the mods will come down on you--as they do.

When do we get to hear more about jTaubes?

I don’t’ care how strenuously you try and defend Taubes. When someone says:

“the incidence of heart disease does not seem to be declining, as 
would be expected if lower fat diets made 
a difference”

yet everyone is eating MORE TOTAL FAT, that is a sleight of hand.

A more clear way of putting it would have been:

“the incidence of heart disease does not seem to be declining, but this is to be expected because EVERYONE IS EATING MORE FAT”

I know you will probably try more acrobatics on this one, but really I am done going round and round. We didn’t even get a chance to touch on that bogus study you posted that sparked this whole debate but then again that one was effectively shot down by your hero Ms Minger.

Next!

You charge 500 baht per hour for that drivel? I want my money back.

Meet Freelee the Banana Girl

She's on 80/10/10

that's means 80 PER CENT CARBS/ 10 per cent ^proteins/ 10 per cent fat

She is super SKINNY

Living proof carbs are good for you and make you slim!

Here's another one. 70 years old and ravaged by 30 years of high fruit and fruit juice intake. Somebody get her some pork rinds immediately!

If I eat 100g of cherries my 1 hour PP BG is around 9.5. Do you suggest I go on a 'fruitarian' diet?

I’m not suggesting you do anything. You have found something that works for you, and I believe you when you say it works for you. You are dealing with a serious condition via lifestyle changes and kudos to you for doing it. But, I am pointing out that other people eating high carb diets, indeed diets of only fruit, are not experiencing health problems and are displaying normal blood tests. I have also pointed out that many people are claiming they control their type 2 diabetes with high carb plant-based diets, and many studies support this. I am not sure whether these people were able to start eating fruit immediately or after transitioning some time, I am sure it varies from person to person.

I think it is important to present options for people who are concerned that high dietary fat will cause heart disease. Again, some people question whether dietary fat intake is connected to heart disease, which is fine, but I think the evidence is pretty solid for this.

Meet Freelee the Banana Girl

She's on 80/10/10

that's means 80 PER CENT CARBS/ 10 per cent ^proteins/ 10 per cent fat

She is super SKINNY

Living proof carbs are good for you and make you slim!

Great vid. Freelee went from overweight to lean on a fruitarian diet. She has now transitioned to some cooked vegan foods.

But some have brought up the long term effects of a fruitarian vegan diet, so here is a video showing how these diets ravage the body after many years This guy has been a raw fruitarian for 30 years and a vegan longer. However he is now 68 and looks in rough shape, maybe he needs to eat some bacon.

Where’s the straw man? I know that’s your favorite fallacy so please do tell.

Here:

Taubes presents evidence of 6% decrease in fat as a percentage of calories intake . . .

Yep.

But they were not lower fat diets

Percentage-wise, they were--the point he was making with his evidence you admit he presented. But the Taubes that said people weren't or may not have been eating more fat as part of an increase in total calories doesn't exist except in your fevered imagination.

OK, you've been spoon fed (some protein) now, and my spoon feeding charge is normally B500/hr. Are you done wasting our time w/ this irrelevant distortion?

500baht per hour eh? Just goes to show you get what you pay for. Is this how much you charge Gary Taubes to put words into his mouth? He is a journalist and knows how to type and he clearly says lower fat diets. However people are now eating higher fat diets because they are eating more fat! He fails to point out that despite recommendations to eat less fat that started in the 70s, people actually ended up eating more fat. And as we know, during this time obesity and other health problems proliferated. Very relevant.

Now, I am not simple/close-minded enough to just focus doggedly on a single macro nutrient when looking at this data….of course carbohydrate consumption increased too during this time, mainly in the form of refined sugar, high fructose corn syrup, refined flour etc. and of course this played a part in the health issues that arose, when combined with the increase in fat intake.

He says that the whole 'low fat craze' has failed because everyone has gotten fatter.

And I quote:

“Since the early 1970s, for instance,
 Americans' average fat intake has dropped 
from over 40% of total calories to 34%; average serum cholesterol levels have dropped
 as well. But no compelling evidence suggests that these decreases have improved 
health Although heart disease death rates 
have dropped and public health officials insist low-fat diets are partly 
responsible the incidence of heart disease does not seem to be declining, as 
would be expected if lower fat diets made 
a difference……Meanwhile, obesity in America, which remained constant from the early 1960s through 1980, has surged upward since then--from 14% of the population to over 22%. Diabetes has increased apace. Both obesity and diabetes increase heart disease risk, which could explain why heart disease incidence is not decreasing. That this obesity epidemic occurred just as the government began bombarding Americans with the low-fat message suggests the possibility, however distant, that low-fat diets might have unintended consequences--among them, weight gain.”

Gary Taubes

http://garytaubes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Science-The-soft-science-of-dietary-fat-21.pdf

What Taubes conveniently fails to point out is that total caloric intake also increased by nearly 25% since 1970 which INCREASED TOTAL calories from fat in spite of the paltry percentage decrease. This is an example of a trick, he uses percentages to cover up actual totals, and he calls a 34% diet a low fat diet.

http://www.goodfoodworld.com/2011/04/calories-consumed-per-day-up-nearly-25-since-1970/

No, you've merely been unable to grasp the logical nuance of what he said, no doubt because it doesn't fit in w/ your personal agenda. Again: he said no such thing. (Makes things so much easier when you help refute yourself.)

He's not calling 34% fat a low fat diet but public health officials are: "public health officials insist low-fat diets." He takes them at their word and merely points out that it is a lower percentage than 40%, which it is; nor is it paltry enough to observe not only no decrease in obesity & diabetes but in fact increases in both.

He made no claim of causality. Now you don't understand the difference between correlation and causality, but nobody understands it better than Taubes. He carefully said "the low fat message suggests the possibility." Consider those words carefully.

Then you change the topic entirely from percentages to total caloric intake as if the total affects the percentages. I'd call that a "trick," wouldn't you? Then, having set up a straw man, YOU conveniently fail to point out the obvious reasons the total caloric intake MIGHT (as Taubes would say) have increased--correlated w/ the public health officials' emphasis on low-fat diets--and the source of most of those calories. And you've conveniently ignored the case studies in population groups w/ lower caloric intake but significant levels of obesity anyway.

I feel I just left Russell Crowe's bunker in A Beautiful Mind. Kind of a joke, really. Next.

Where’s the straw man? I know that’s your favorite fallacy so please do tell.

Taubes presents evidence of 6% decrease in fat as a percentage of calories intake and goes on to say:

“But no compelling evidence suggests that these decreases have improved 
health Although heart disease death rates 
have dropped and public health officials insist low-fat diets are partly 
responsible the incidence of heart disease does not seem to be declining, as 
would be expected if lower fat diets made 
a difference”

But they were not lower fat diets, people actually increased their fat intake because overall intake of food increased. If you can’t figure out the math on this one you better find a new bunker to go back to.

Sure, if you don't buy into the lipid hypothesis and restricting carbs works on your blood glucose there may not be many reasons not go high fat/low carb. However, studies like these do refute the concept of carbs being poison to diabetics.

And in response to the Rice Diet pic, I have this:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8779500/ns/business-us_business/t/atkins-nutritionals-files-bankruptcy/

You still don't get it. It can be demonstrated on every diabetic's testing strips every day of the week that carbs are poison. It's actually worse than poison. Insulin is not necessary to shunt glucose into nerve cells therefore levels in the blood of over around 140 mg/dl start to destroy nerve cells. Slowly but surely your nervous system degenerates, starting in the eyes and peripherals (feet).

Now you're suggesting that a diabetic should start high carb'ing. That's insanity to put it mildly. Do you not realise that a banana can raise a diabetics blood sugar into the 200's? Of course you don't, because you're not diabetic. An average carb meal can send it shooting up to 400 and beyond if they don't use medication... bearing in mind that cellular damage starts at around 140.

Seriously dude, you're clueless.. and I know you're desperately searching on Google to find evidence to support your position.

Fortunately you're going to be short of candidates to follow your suggestions as most diabetics know better.

You may think I'm being OTP argumentative here (you certainly are), but I'm trying to be the voice of reason just in case some diabetics decide to try your insane suggestions.

Sure, everyone is entitled to believe anything they want, but asking diabetics to go high carb in a futile search for a cure is just plain madness.

I'm not searching for anything, all studies I presented were easily found. They were mainstream studies in mainstream journals and I am sure there are many more. Take a look around the web there are a lot of diabetics using high carb plant based diets to control their diabetes. Are you saying all of them are lying or have some secret vegan agenda? Maybe you should be open to the fact that many people have found ways to control their blood sugar that are different than yours.

Sure, if you don't buy into the lipid hypothesis and restricting carbs works on your blood glucose there may not be many reasons not go high fat/low carb. However, studies like these do refute the concept of carbs being poison to diabetics.

And in response to the Rice Diet pic, I have this:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8779500/ns/business-us_business/t/atkins-nutritionals-files-bankruptcy/

Is this just a willie waving contest? I don't know about you but if I screw up on this carbohydrate thing I'm likely to go blind or need amputation.

When I was first diagnosed as diabetic I attended a 3 day course which taught me what the medical establishment thought was the right thing to do. My own GP told me to 'stop eating sugar' and when I asked him if I should be testing my BG I was told that there was no need.

Fortunately for me I'm naturally curious so I paid for my own BG meter and strips. Regular testing over the next three months demonstrated that my GP was talking horseshit.

My fasting BG this morning was 4.4. If you don't know what that means then I suggest you do a little investigation rather than quoting business news about bankruptcies.

Whoah man, chill. Just trading jokes with the guy. Again, if it works for you and you don't buy into the idea that dietary fat causes heart disease then by all means go for it! I have produced a bunch of studies that point to the effectiveness of high carb low fat diets, any many diabetics claim that these diets work for them just like you claim yours works for you. No need to get defensive about it.

You need to provide evidence that an extremely high carb diet (the rice diet) cures diabetes.

Let's take it a step at a time and not confuse the issue. Once you provide me with some evidence, I'm quite happy to discuss other topics with you. After all, this debate goes back to a video you presented that claimed that the "rice diet" can cure diabetes...

I don't want endless links that you find on Google searches and I'm not interested in wasting my time watching any more 30 minute videos. I need to see some case studies that prove your claim.

Ok here is one where insulin therapy could be discontinued after 16 days:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/11/2312.short

And again, I am not making any claims about the rice diet in particular. I presented a video on 20th century low fat research, one of the studies outlined in that video was the rice diet.

Here's another one showing improvements but not saying if anyone completely reversed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16873779

I am assuming the low fat vegan diet in this study was a whole food plant based diet (ie rich in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, whole starches, and legumes), not a diet filled with sugar and refined carbs. A low fat vegan diet is of course very high carb, usually in the 80% carb, 10% protein, 10% fat range contingent on legume intake.

Really, I don't need to see reports of people improving blood sugar levels. I can do that myself. Most of us can... even without drugs. Low carb - high protein/fat diets do that quite effectively.

I'm interested in the cure, meaning I don't ever have to concern myself with carb load in my diet, ever again. I want to be able to eat cakes and chocolate (in moderation of course) without worrying about going blind or losing my legs.

rice diet closure.JPG

Sure, if you don't buy into the lipid hypothesis and restricting carbs works on your blood glucose there may not be many reasons not go high fat/low carb. However, studies like these do refute the concept of carbs being poison to diabetics.

And in response to the Rice Diet pic, I have this:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8779500/ns/business-us_business/t/atkins-nutritionals-files-bankruptcy/

You need to provide evidence that an extremely high carb diet (the rice diet) cures diabetes.

Let's take it a step at a time and not confuse the issue. Once you provide me with some evidence, I'm quite happy to discuss other topics with you. After all, this debate goes back to a video you presented that claimed that the "rice diet" can cure diabetes...

I don't want endless links that you find on Google searches and I'm not interested in wasting my time watching any more 30 minute videos. I need to see some case studies that prove your claim.

Ok here is one where insulin therapy could be discontinued after 16 days:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/11/2312.short

And again, I am not making any claims about the rice diet in particular. I presented a video on 20th century low fat research, one of the studies outlined in that video was the rice diet.

Here's another one showing improvements but not saying if anyone completely reversed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16873779

I am assuming the low fat vegan diet in this study was a whole food plant based diet (ie rich in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, whole starches, and legumes), not a diet filled with sugar and refined carbs. A low fat vegan diet is of course very high carb, usually in the 80% carb, 10% protein, 10% fat range contingent on legume intake.

Are you trying to be ignorant on purpose, or can't you help it?

Quite literally if a diabetic with bad control and high numbers consumes extreme amounts of sugar (as suggested in the video you posted) they can slip into a coma and die. You're actually suggesting dangerous practices. FYI, Mary Ford died that way - diabetic coma, in the 70's when the disease wasn't well understood.

Uncontrolled blood sugar in diabetics is the leading cause of blindness and limb amputation in the US... and you're suggesting they should start high carb'ing?

I am saying the a whole food plant based diet (which is high in carbohydrates) has a lot of evidence backing it up as a treatment for type 2 diabetes. I personally am not suggesting eating a bunch of sugar, however it seems Kempner had success with his diet and no one slipped into a coma. Again I am not defending the rice diet or promoting it.

That paper is 35 years old.

You read the date...great job!

I also read my BG meter on a regular basis. I will repeat Tropo's claim from my own personal experience:

Carbs are literally poison to diabetics.

I’m not arguing that you can get your BG reader in line by avoiding carbs. I’m not arguing that low carb diets dont have other benefits like weight loss. I used low carb diets to lose weight for many years, starting with the Zone in 1999 through Atkins, Paleo etc. What I am arguing is whether the culprit is carbs alone. I believe the culprit to be fat. Of course I can’t be sure of my position and neither can you because the science is not definitive on either end. Either way I am glad you guys have found a way to control your glucose levels, I just think there is a healthier way.

I’m the one making wild claims and the burden of proof is only on me? What about:

If you're diabetic fats are your friend

Carbs are quite literally poison to diabetics.

These are wild claims, any scientific backup on these?

Readings from my BG meter?

LOL. I should have told him that I often use up to 10 strips per day, so I have a very good idea how foods effect my blood sugar levels.

Still can't back up your wild claims.

That paper is 35 years old.

You read the date...great job!

You need to provide evidence that an extremely high carb diet (the rice diet) cures diabetes.

Let's take it a step at a time and not confuse the issue. Once you provide me with some evidence, I'm quite happy to discuss other topics with you. After all, this debate goes back to a video you presented that claimed that the "rice diet" can cure diabetes...

I don't want endless links that you find on Google searches and I'm not interested in wasting my time watching any more 30 minute videos. I need to see some case studies that prove your claim.

Ok here is one where insulin therapy could be discontinued after 16 days:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/11/2312.short

And again, I am not making any claims about the rice diet in particular. I presented a video on 20th century low fat research, one of the studies outlined in that video was the rice diet.

I’m the one making wild claims and the burden of proof is only on me? What about:

If you're diabetic fats are your friend

Carbs are quite literally poison to diabetics.

These are wild claims, any scientific backup on these?

Also you still haven’t backed up your claim that people eating the rice diet would be malnourished over extended periods.

I supplied a summary of studies that showed the success of plant based and vegetarian diets in treating diabetes. I backed up my claims with scientific studies. You will be hard pressed to find anywhere near the same amount of studies backing up the success of low carb diets.

I introduced a video from a popular promoter of low carb diets, I am not claiming she is an authority. I wouldn’t be surprised she is unhealthy considering the low carb diet she promotes and eats. However, her presentation on the low fat diet research in the 20^th century was pretty good. It was not my intention to promote the rice diet but I thought the findings from that study were pretty interesting.

Rice cultivation goes back 10,000 years in China. But we don’t need to go back that far to see that rice has been the staple in East Asia for a long time and people did not develop type 2 diabetes eating a rice based diet. No need to obfuscate and talk about Neolithic eating patterns and the lifespan of ancient man etc etc.

BTW I mistyped 'heart disease' in my last post meaning to type 'diabetes'.

But, I believe in the Lipid Hypothesis. If you don’t believe higher lipids in the blood cause heart disease then I could see how fat percentages wouldn’t matter to you. Good on you for finding something that works for you and for making the lifestyle changes though.

I was talking about moderate levels of both macronutrients and making the assumption that they are clean foods and the fats are good fats (what constitutes good fats is an extremely debatable topic that I don't want to go into here).

It's a little bit easier to restrict dietary carbs when you have a deadly disease to concern yourself with rather than worrying about body aesthetics.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Before anyone decides to undertake any sort of diet they should at least find out if their blood sugar levels are normal or not. On average people find out they have impaired insulin metabolism (type 2 diabetes) 12 years after it began. By that time it has already caused a considerable amount of irreparable tissue damage and specifically nerve damage.

The reason I stress this point is because a person who has normal insulin metabolism will do a lot better on a higher (moderate) carb diet than one who is impaired. Carbs in an impaired person are more likely to end up as bodyfat than in a normal person. A positive diagnosis could very well indicate the major cause for a person's obesity and they might well be able to normalize their bodyweight just by controlling blood sugar using diabetic drugs, carb control and exercise.

Then consider that a huge percentage of the world's population are undiagnosed diabetics. It truly is a silent killer. Many more are near diabetic (pre-diabetic) and still many more on their way to the pre-diabetic condition (FBS in the mid to high 90 mg/dl).

This means that anyone who is reading this thread that hasn't been diagnosed is quite likely to be in one of the above categories.

Irrespective of the theoretical risk of higher blood lipids, the risk of high blood sugar is worse IMO. If you're diabetic fats are your friend. They help to stabilize blood sugar levels. Carbs are quite literally poison to diabetics.

In actual fact I've shown perfectly normal levels of HDL/LDL, total cholesterol and triglycerides on 6 or more eggs per day.

Actually there are many people who have reversed diabetes with high carb low fat plant based diets, check out the work of Dr Neal Barnard. Many people believe that low carb diets work as an effective bandaid while low fat diets actually reverse diabetes. I posted this video a couple of week ago, but I will post again, it is of a popular low carb author who was previously critical of high carb low fat diets, she actually does a great job summarizing the evidence of high carb low fat diets (and graciously admitting she was mistaken). She zeroes in on diabetes in this talk too:

Also be careful what passes for ‘normal’ lipid levels in the blood. In the US ‘normal’ is in the area of 200 mg/dl. Doctors will say this level is ok because it is the norm, but it is way higher than the levels of traditional cultures with no heart disease (<150mg/dl).

Before you start getting too excited about the prospect of the rice diet curing diabetes, you may want to read this:

https://www.drmcdougall.com/2013/12/31/walter-kempner-md-founder-of-the-rice-diet/

I don't see any evidence that this diet cured "some" diabetics other than them saying so.

Some practitioners still advocate the use of this diet (in modified form) for the "nearly dead".

I'll bet my bottom dollar that this diet would send many diabetics into a coma.

I'm calling total bs unless you can introduce some proper evidence, which I've been unable to find. To even mention it is dangerous.

PS. By proper evidence I mean precise details about each diabetic patient who was cured. How bad their condition was before they started the diet i.e. FBS, 1 and 2 hour postprandial readings, average daily blood glucose, HbA1c etc, how long their readings took to normalize on this diet and how long they stayed normal before they were declared "cured". How long they used this diet. It's clearly a very unhealthy diet which would cause malnutrition if continued for extended periods.

I wasn’t actually talking about the rice diet in particular when I mentioned reversing heart disease. I was talking about plant based diets in general. There is a lot of evidence for the effectiveness of plant based diets for diabetes. I am not sure whether they meet all your criteria, but I would wager there is a lot less evidence for low carb diets in this area, especially long term.

http://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/1/38.full

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/About_us/What-we-say/Food-nutrition-lifestyle/Low-carbohydrate-diets-for-people-with-Type-2-diabetes/

Speaking of proof, what proof do you have that the rice diet was an unhealthy diet which would cause malnutrition? Or are you speculating? I ask because a diet very close to the Kempner’s diet was followed throughout East Asia for 10,000 years. The only difference being the inclusion of vegetables and very small amounts of meat. Until the introduction of processed and Western style foods Type 2 Diabetes was highly unusual in East Asia. Since these people were eating primarily carbohydrates in the form of rice and vegetables the main macronutrient change to their diets has been the increase in fats and proteins and with it the explosion of Type 2 Diabetes. So it is interesting to blame carbs for Diabetes.

This is the trick that Gary Taubes uses in his books.

No, he doesn't use any "tricks."

He says that the whole 'low fat craze' has failed because everyone has gotten fatter.

Got a quotation?

And I quote:

“Since the early 1970s, for instance,
 Americans' average fat intake has dropped 
from over 40% of total calories to 34%; average serum cholesterol levels have dropped
 as well. But no compelling evidence suggests that these decreases have improved 
health Although heart disease death rates 
have dropped and public health officials insist low-fat diets are partly 
responsible the incidence of heart disease does not seem to be declining, as 
would be expected if lower fat diets made 
a difference……Meanwhile, obesity in America, which remained constant from the early 1960s through 1980, has surged upward since then--from 14% of the population to over 22%. Diabetes has increased apace. Both obesity and diabetes increase heart disease risk, which could explain why heart disease incidence is not decreasing. That this obesity epidemic occurred just as the government began bombarding Americans with the low-fat message suggests the possibility, however distant, that low-fat diets might have unintended consequences--among them, weight gain.”

Gary Taubes

http://garytaubes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Science-The-soft-science-of-dietary-fat-21.pdf

What Taubes conveniently fails to point out is that total caloric intake also increased by nearly 25% since 1970 which INCREASED TOTAL calories from fat in spite of the paltry percentage decrease. This is an example of a trick, he uses percentages to cover up actual totals, and he calls a 34% diet a low fat diet.

http://www.goodfoodworld.com/2011/04/calories-consumed-per-day-up-nearly-25-since-1970/

But, I believe in the Lipid Hypothesis. If you don’t believe higher lipids in the blood cause heart disease then I could see how fat percentages wouldn’t matter to you. Good on you for finding something that works for you and for making the lifestyle changes though.

I was talking about moderate levels of both macronutrients and making the assumption that they are clean foods and the fats are good fats (what constitutes good fats is an extremely debatable topic that I don't want to go into here).

It's a little bit easier to restrict dietary carbs when you have a deadly disease to concern yourself with rather than worrying about body aesthetics.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Before anyone decides to undertake any sort of diet they should at least find out if their blood sugar levels are normal or not. On average people find out they have impaired insulin metabolism (type 2 diabetes) 12 years after it began. By that time it has already caused a considerable amount of irreparable tissue damage and specifically nerve damage.

The reason I stress this point is because a person who has normal insulin metabolism will do a lot better on a higher (moderate) carb diet than one who is impaired. Carbs in an impaired person are more likely to end up as bodyfat than in a normal person. A positive diagnosis could very well indicate the major cause for a person's obesity and they might well be able to normalize their bodyweight just by controlling blood sugar using diabetic drugs, carb control and exercise.

Then consider that a huge percentage of the world's population are undiagnosed diabetics. It truly is a silent killer. Many more are near diabetic (pre-diabetic) and still many more on their way to the pre-diabetic condition (FBS in the mid to high 90 mg/dl).

This means that anyone who is reading this thread that hasn't been diagnosed is quite likely to be in one of the above categories.

Irrespective of the theoretical risk of higher blood lipids, the risk of high blood sugar is worse IMO. If you're diabetic fats are your friend. They help to stabilize blood sugar levels. Carbs are quite literally poison to diabetics.

In actual fact I've shown perfectly normal levels of HDL/LDL, total cholesterol and triglycerides on 6 or more eggs per day.

Actually there are many people who have reversed diabetes with high carb low fat plant based diets, check out the work of Dr Neal Barnard. Many people believe that low carb diets work as an effective bandaid while low fat diets actually reverse diabetes. I posted this video a couple of week ago, but I will post again, it is of a popular low carb author who was previously critical of high carb low fat diets, she actually does a great job summarizing the evidence of high carb low fat diets (and graciously admitting she was mistaken). She zeroes in on diabetes in this talk too:

Also be careful what passes for ‘normal’ lipid levels in the blood. In the US ‘normal’ is in the area of 200 mg/dl. Doctors will say this level is ok because it is the norm, but it is way higher than the levels of traditional cultures with no heart disease (<150mg/dl).

The percentage of carbs or fat in a diet are secondary to long term adherence to whatever diet one chooses. A lot of people talk up the low carb diet, but few can follow it for long as it requires giving up too many popular foods.

Sure, some super heros with super will power will come on here and say they have no problem following it forever, but I don't believe most of them. You never lose your taste for sweet things no matter how long you stay away from them. Most of us were brought up on sweet stuff and the desire will never go away.

Don't get me wrong - I believe a low carb diet is very effective if you can stay on it, but I believe a diet of moderate carbs and moderate fat will win in the long term.

As for me, I have a medical reason why I need to keep my diet low in carbs i.e. (pre)diabetes, but normal people will not have that problem to consider and can do well on a more "normal" diet and just consider total calories and cut out the obvious crap. It is known among diabetics on strict dietary control that very low carb diets make them more sensitive to carbs. They lose their ability to handle them at any level.

I'm of the opinion that if a person needs to go virtually zero carbs to keep their blood sugar levels in the normal or near normal range without diabetic drugs, that they'd have a better life if they ate more carbs and used medicine to control blood sugar. This approach has served my mother well and she's still kicking in her mid-80's eating a diet quite high in carbs.

One must consider a long term strategy and unless you're diabetic there's no reason to make life more difficult that it already is.

The percentage of macronutrients are critical IMO. But, I believe in the Lipid Hypothesis. If you don’t believe higher lipids in the blood cause heart disease then I could see how fat percentages wouldn’t matter to you. Good on you for finding something that works for you and for making the lifestyle changes though.

But now there's this:

Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

The NY Times reports on a new study (abstract) showing that low-carb diets have better health benefits than low-fat diets in a test without calorie restrictions. "By the end of the yearlong trial, people in the low-carbohydrate group had lost about eight pounds more on average than those in the low-fat group. They had significantly greater reductions in body fat than the low-fat group, and improvements in lean muscle mass — even though neither group changed their levels of physical activity. While the low-fat group did lose weight, they appeared to lose more muscle than fat. They actually lost lean muscle mass, which is a bad thing,' Dr. Mozaffarian said.

--http://beta.slashdot.org/story/206679

The ‘low fat’ group in this study was at 30% fat….not very low. Even low carb gurus are shooting down this study. Actually, low carb author Denis Minger had one of the best responses to this study (taken from her Facebook page):

“I see this study making the rounds lately as long-awaited vindication for low carb. I guess I'll be the bubble-burster and point out that regardless of its results, it's the kind of shoddy research we should be ripping to shreds. The "low fat" group only changed a smidgen from baseline (AKA the Standard American Diet of Doom) -- from a normal diet of about 35% fat to a so-called-low-fat diet of 30% -- and for anyone who saw my AHS talk, was very much in the "macronutrient swampland" where the effects of reducing fat are pretty much nil. Low fat should really be defined as under 15% of calories or so, which certainly wasn't the case here. The low carb group, on the other hand, had very strict requirements (40 grams of carbs per day) and a much greater degree of change. Comparing these two diets is like racing a Ferrari against a unicycler and thinking the latter actually has a fighting chance. I'm crossin' all my fingers and toes that we'll one day get a study pitting whole foods paleo or low-carb against whole-foods true low fat -- THAT would be interesting.”

This is the trick that Gary Taubes uses in his books. He says that the whole 'low fat craze' has failed because everyone has gotten fatter. But average percentage of calories from fat have only gone down incrementally since low fat guidelines were released in the 70s. Low fat is 10%-15% fat not 30% lol.