Major evidence that low carb diets not needed for long term weight loss/maintenance success

[tropo]

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.

Would you like to see my log of blood tests going back to 2005?

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?

Edited September 5, 2014 by tropo

[tropo]

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.

Controlling blood sugar through carb restriction is not some magical "way" that Sustento and I found to control our blood sugar. It's Diabetes 101. 100's of millions world wide do this. Any diabetic can find this out in one day of testing. The only exception is resistant starch, which does help to keep numbers lower.

Once again, this is not a discussion about the cause of diabetes. This is about managing it once you have it.

[Ragz]

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.

[sustento]

I can't eat peas or sweetcorn without wrecking my PP BG readings. Most other veg are ok. Fruit is a nightmare. I've only got to sniff a cherry...

Edited September 5, 2014 by sustento

[Ragz]

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.

[tropo]

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.

[Ragz]

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/

[sustento]

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.

[Ragz]

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.

[sustento]

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.

[sustento]

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.

If you want to read about diabetes from someone who really knows what they're talking about I suggest you look for books by Dr Bernstein.

[tropo]

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.

Edited September 5, 2014 by tropo

[tropo]

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.

That's exceptional. Truly normal (optimal) FBS. Do you achieve that with dietary control and exercise, or do you take Metformin or some other medication? No matter what I do I can seldom get lower FBS than 5.5 (100 on my scale).

Some people struggle with FBS. I do better on PP readings, but FBS is always a bit high... something going on in the liver as it's the gluconeogenesis which raises FBS readings.

[Ragz]

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.

[sustento]

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.

That's exceptional. Truly normal (optimal) FBS. Do you achieve that with dietary control and exercise, or do you take Metformin or some other medication? No matter what I do I can seldom get lower FBS than 5.5 (100 on my scale).

Some people struggle with FBS. I do better on PP readings, but FBS is always a bit high... something going on in the liver as it's the gluconeogenesis which raises FBS readings.

It's very unusual. I think it may be because I awoke at 5am and wasn't able to get back to sleep so I got up. I normally get up a little later and it's usually around 5.3 to 5.6.

It's just dietary control. I don't do much exercise as I have a dodgy leg - broke it 3 years ago and it's still not right. I usually have bacon & eggs (or similar) for breakfast and some sort of meat (steak, pork chops) with steamed veggies (not peas or sweetcorn) for an evening meal. Don't eat much else at all.

[tropo]

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.

Didn't have to search? Easy or hard, you've been searching...

.. but we're going around in circles, so it's time to take a break....

Edited September 6, 2014 by tropo

[tropo]

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.

That's exceptional. Truly normal (optimal) FBS. Do you achieve that with dietary control and exercise, or do you take Metformin or some other medication? No matter what I do I can seldom get lower FBS than 5.5 (100 on my scale).

Some people struggle with FBS. I do better on PP readings, but FBS is always a bit high... something going on in the liver as it's the gluconeogenesis which raises FBS readings.

It's very unusual. I think it may be because I awoke at 5am and wasn't able to get back to sleep so I got up. I normally get up a little later and it's usually around 5.3 to 5.6.

It's just dietary control. I don't do much exercise as I have a dodgy leg - broke it 3 years ago and it's still not right. I usually have bacon & eggs (or similar) for breakfast and some sort of meat (steak, pork chops) with steamed veggies (not peas or sweetcorn) for an evening meal. Don't eat much else at all.

I sometimes get unusually low numbers after food, but it doesn't matter what time I wake up - FBS is always the same... which is a bad thing because it makes the average daily blood sugar higher and increases HbA1c numbers.

[sustento]

Just had a late breakfast. Two home made sausage patties, scrambled eggs (3) and sauteed mushrooms. 1 hour PP is 6.9.

[JSixpack]

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.

Edited September 7, 2014 by JSixpack

[chiang mai]

[Ragz]

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.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Ragz

[tropo]

Just had a late breakfast. Two home made sausage patties, scrambled eggs (3) and sauteed mushrooms. 1 hour PP is 6.9.

Were you happy with this reading or not? i.e. .was it higher than usual?

[JSixpack]

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?

Edited September 7, 2014 by JSixpack

[Kitsune]

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!

[robblok]

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!

Try it yourself and report back in a few years. One gentic freak does not constitute proof.

[JSixpack]

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!

Irrelevant, proves nothing, and useless for the average person. Nobody denies that if you have the discipline, obsession, or sickness you can cut enough calories of any kind to lose weight. We've always had the pics of Auschwitz survivors. They didn't exercise much, either, did they? So much for the necessity of exercise to lose weight.

And you can always find some great bodies established via eating a low carb diet. Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston, and Kim Kardashian immediately come to mind. KK also kept the weight where it really counts.

Next

Edited September 7, 2014 by JSixpack

[sustento]

Just had a late breakfast. Two home made sausage patties, scrambled eggs (3) and sauteed mushrooms. 1 hour PP is 6.9.

Were you happy with this reading or not? i.e. .was it higher than usual?

I was quite happy with it. It was about normal for a typical after breakfast BG. I follow the bloodsugar101 rule 7.7/6.6/6.1 so it's 0.8 better than it 'should' be.

[robblok]

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!

Irrelevant, proves nothing, and useless for the average person. Nobody denies that if you have the discipline, obsession, or sickness you can cut enough calories of any kind to lose weight. We've always had the pics of Auschwitz survivors. They didn't exercise much, either, did they? So much for the necessity of exercise to lose weight.

And you can always find some great bodies established via eating a low carb diet. Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston, and Kim Kardashian immediately come to mind. KK also kept the weight where it really counts.

Next

The same goes for those bodybuilding programs whete some huge guy promotes a program that is basically crap but people believe it because he is big. The guy just has good genetics and some juice he could do anything and get huge but that wont work for the average joe.

[JSixpack]

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!

Living proof that certain select meats keep your weight down and ensure a healthy long life:

Oldest man in the world lives to 123 on diet of lizards and skunk meat

[tropo]

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!

Try it yourself and report back in a few years. One gentic freak does not constitute proof.

Even more to the point, let's see how great she looks once she hits 40 or 50. Young kids can maintain lean physiques on any proportions of macronutrients.

Edited September 7, 2014 by tropo