Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
ROBINECG Posts: 1,928
9/11/14 5:17 A

Low carb high fat is working wonders for my blood sugar numbers!

ALGEBRAGIRL Posts: 1,925
11/8/13 2:41 P

I guess we'll have to wait to see what the actual metanalysis said. It WAS basically a summary of the studies so far, few of which have been long term. So, google 'NCBI' and go to that database. You will see all the published studies - including any by that Swedish organization. That particular study does not appear yet, but it will. If there is any harm to long-term low-carb diets, it's not evident yet, but then, that's a very difficult way to show 'long term harm' (using a negative to prove a positive).

BTW. setting up an account in NCBI is free and open to everyone. And once you search on a topic, you will find so many studies that address individual aspects and various types of studies of those aspects of an issue - just start with the most recent if it is too daunting.
Then you can store the results of your search (all those studies you want for one aspect) in folders kept for your ID on the site. THEN you can check the option that says you want notice and links to studies as they come up in the future, relating to your search. It's very very easy to look at the studies (and data) yourself.

I continue to count calories because it makes very good sense. So far, no long-term studies show that counting calories is detrimental to one's health. But then again, that hasn't meant much because despite the success of WW (basically calorie counting), each individual sees what works for them, with their doctor's understanding of their health, their understanding of their own tastes and food budget and cooking preferences, etc.

Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 11/8/2013 (14:45)
RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
11/8/13 12:33 P

Yes, the article wasn't the resounding endorsement that many low carbers wanted, but when people admit mistakes, they usually do it quietly, while making the mistake seem smaller.

The important part is that they found NO health problems associated with the LCHF diet, and weight loss was as good on low carb. What they neglected was to discuss any of the health benefits that LCHF has over a low fat diet.

The top two reasons for not eating this way for life, is the low obesity rate of Swedes, and some people won't be able to stick to this strict of a diet. Basically, why would they eat this way?

If obesity isn't a problem, then whatever you are eating is okay, and if you don't stick to any diet, then it wont work.. neither statement says anything about the diet though. What is more important, is what is MISSING in this study. Along with stating that there were no dangerous side effects, they didn't say that low fat had health benefits that a LCHF diet doesn't.

No one is doing THOSE studies, because THAT would be the end of low fat, when they actually had a study showing that low carb was HEALTHIER, or that it helped most diabetics see REAL success controlling blood sugars.

The absence doesn't mean it isn't true, it just means that they didn't try to say low fat was healthier, since that is obvious to all. If low fat wasn't superior, how DID they compare, healthwise?

Since there are NO dangerous side effects, and weight loss is the same, the LCHF diet is as good as low fat, and in practice, much healthier, since a lot of high carb food is processed, with added sugar and salt. As far as being able to follow a diet, I find it amusing for low fat supporters to say any other diet is hard to stick to. I would be surprised if 5 % of the people eating low fat ate anywhere close to what was intended when low fat was created by the U.S. Senate.

So what seems to be the idea here is that while low carb is okay, and as good as low fat, Swedes have no reason to eat that way. No one is saying that the 33 % of Americans failing on low fat shouldn't try it. I think they would be amazed at how much easier it is to stick to, since the food tastes much better.

What can be taken away from this study is that low carb CAN be a diet that is healthy, and able to be eaten for the rest of your life. The fact that they wouldn't choose to do so, doesn't change that. A majority of people will not choose to do so, but as they get sicker, and sicker, they may have to, to get healthy again.

ALGEBRAGIRL Posts: 1,925
11/7/13 12:51 P

If you actually read the article, you'll see how misleading that headline is.

Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 11/7/2013 (12:53)
GIPPER1961 Posts: 765
10/30/13 12:46 P

Dr. Keys also failed to note in his ground breaking 7 countries study that 22 countries data were available to him. When later researchers applied those countries his clean regression analysis fell apart. He also failed to take sugar intake into account. From what I have read nearly the same regression analysis existed for sugar as for fat. Since he failed to control for it he couldn't possibly have said definitely that fat was the cause and not sugar.

Even with his now known to be flawed analysis it was the government who put his ideas into public policy that sent us down the road to obesity and type 2 diabetes that we are on today. The desire to make food prices stable (an admirable goal) led the advocating of high fructose corn syrup which is so much cheaper than sugar it became used everywhere. With the government pushing lowering fat flavor was reintroduced by using sugar and salt. We would probably have been better off if the government in the 70's had just stayed out of the entire subject

CANTARESF SparkPoints: (63)
Fitness Minutes: (60)
Posts: 13
10/29/13 4:47 P

What always gets me about these modern axiomata, such as "saturated fat=BAD", apart from their lack of truly substantive supporting science, is their sheer intuitive lunacy. People are made of saturated fat! We evolved to store our main energy reserves in that form. People proudly losing pounds and inches on restricted-calorie "low-fat" diets are mobilizing and burning the stuff like crazy. Once liberated into the bloodstream, stored fat and dietary fat are indistinguishable. Yet we are asked to believe that the latter is injurious and downright toxic, regardless of context. I find sticks of pure butter far easier to swallow than that suggestion.

Much the same goes for red meat and cholesterol, also fundamental building blocks tarred by tendentious correlations. If you want an alternative rationale for all the animus directed against these things, consider that as raw materials, they just don't fit into the infinite shelf-life/high "value-added" profit-margin business model the way wheat, corn, soy, sugar etc. do. Add all that processed agricultural crap to a national diet, so that people become insulin-resistant, chronically inflamed, and perpetually hungry, and you have a prescription for obesity and disease. People eating that way will probably store all the sat fat they take in, but that doesn't make fat the culprit.

JUSTME9898 Posts: 2,904
10/29/13 4:13 P

interesting information - it is going to take me some time to digest it

RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
10/29/13 3:05 P


Edited by: RUSSELL_40 at: 10/29/2013 (15:37)
RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
10/29/13 2:23 P

Ancel Keys was a hack. He made the K-rations for WWII, and included a cigarette to dry the lungs out. This study of his wasn't a result of him using the data, but the first time that someone started with the result they wanted, and skimmed the data to make an argument supporting it. He is responsible for all the deaths, and disease we suffer from today, with high carb dieting.

He didn't note that all of the countries with high rates of disease were also those that were more advanced in agriculture, and ate higher carb, especially processed grains. More primitive societies didn't have these problems. Societies that ate high fat, like Eskimos didn't have this problem. Every society that started eating processed grains, and increased sugar started to see increases in cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. In America both started in the 1890's

Since Ancel Keys was America's Doctor at that time, his view was taken over many other doctors, and the Senate decided low fat was best for us. Now 40 years later, we can see what a disaster it was, and this moron has a large part of the blame, since no one looking at his data would come up with his hypothesis. What should have happened was they tested these hypotheses to see whether the cause was meat, fat , and cholesterol, or processed grain, carbs, and sugar that increased with civilization.

Instead they decided they were right, fixed the data to say what they wanted, and murdered millions with their stupidity. Ancel Keys is the poster child of this mistake.

EXOTEC Posts: 3,327
10/29/13 12:47 P

This was an interesting article. Thanks for posting the link. I agree with some of it. I have reservations, though. To paraphrase it…

“Ancel Keys was certainly among the first to emphasize the association between saturated fat intake and heart disease. But, while perhaps not quite right, was never really wrong.
Keys looked at rates of disease around the world and correctly noted that heart disease was more common in societies that ate more meat and dairy.
I am currently completing work on the third edition of my nutrition textbook for health care professionals, which encompasses well over 5,000 citations. I have been obligated, and privileged, to view the scientific literature on diet and health from altitude as few others have.“
Even Keyes was heard to state that saturated fats weren’t “the enemy.” That didn’t get into the official report, unfortunately.
When Keyes compiled his ‘study’, he failed to include the dozen or twenty other societies he also surveyed. He failed to separate saturated fats from trans fats. It turns out (as we now know) that the trans fats were the primary culprit all along. This could be a reason why the data didn’t correlate nicely to begin with.

It raises some questions in my mind about personal agendas when an article’s author touts his upcoming book, too.

Did you read down to see other readers’ comments? I won’t cite any as “references,” but they do provide some insight into points made in the article…

“Katz is absolutely wrong about Ancel Keyes. His "findings" may have gotten him on the cover of Time magazine and started the anti-cholesterol craze, which in turn was marketed by the food and drug industries, but they were highly skewed. Katz says he correctly fingered the correlation of high dairy and meat consumption in some Western countries and heart disease. But the fact is he ignored the same correlation that exists in many countries and groups where there is a high consumption of meat and dairy but have very LOW rates of heart disease.
Katz is not doing justice to the complexity of the factors that need to be examined in the case of heart disease, i.e. the "confounding" ones he mentions, when he so readily accepts Keyes' discredited study.”

“How typical to see an article defending Ancel Keys, who fraudulently conspired to cherry-pick data to suit his own… hypothesis, and then managed to sell it to the political establishment. Millions of people have suffered and died too early because of Ancel Keys.
It's also a complete untruth, in the same vein, to suggest that there are no healthy societies who eat animal fats…”

“Take with a grain of salt what orthodox doctors, especially those with tenure, say about 'nutrition'. Your death is merely a statistical outlier in their minds.”

We do have problems with saturated animal fats in our diets. The problem isn't in the fat itself, but in the unnatural compounds and nutritional balance of those fats. Our feedlot-raised meats are full of chemicals and hormones. They eat GMO feeds. Their fat profile is abnormally skewed toward omega-6 fatty acids, which we ingest when we eat them. Grass-finished meats, or "naturally fed" animals don't have most of these abnormalities. I try to eat those sorts when I can, and only eat lean meats if they're finished in our typical modern methods. But I don't avoid fats. The good ones have never been the problem.

If you want a comprehensive view of the truth on fats, given by an esteemed researcher who was actually there for the debates and commissioning by the McGovern panel, read

and, a less technical read:

Edited by: EXOTEC at: 10/29/2013 (14:28)
KELLYFIT123 Posts: 1,312
10/29/13 8:31 A

Here is another article from a Yale physician/public health researcher that supports what some of you are saying in this thread about fats.

Dr. Katz recently wrote a book called Disease Proof that is pretty interesting.

CERTHIA SparkPoints: (22,539)
Fitness Minutes: (16,207)
Posts: 770
10/29/13 6:04 A

I've been thinking and reading and discussing.. Perhaps LCHF can be sustainable? I must admit than when I heard LCHF, I've instantly thought of sausages, cheese, bacon and eggs. I've realized this is possibly misguided. If the meats are not factory farmed, corn fed and highly processed, and the majority of fats and calories are coming from plant sources like nuts, seeds and legumes a LCGF diet would not be so bad. It could very well be an improvement from the way foods are produced and consumed today.

Because, lets face it, most food today are not produced in a sustainable manner, and eating the grains directly instead of the meats that are produced by eating grains is a currently a great way to conserve energy. If our food production is to sustain the worlds population generations to come (especially if this population continues to grow) our governments needs to come up with some new less polluting, less wasteful and more productive, strategies.

Edited by: CERTHIA at: 10/29/2013 (06:08)
10/27/13 2:26 P

The cows I eat are eating grass. My milk and cream come from grass fed cows as well. They need to let the land go back to it's natural grass state and let 'em roam. It might solve the massive topsoil erosion problem we have by not having fields exposed to the elements for 2/3 of the year and it would also capture more greenhouse gases annually.

I live by the Great Lakes and all I ever see growing are corn and soy, corn and soy. I wish they would grow more vegetables and fruit for everyone to eat instead.

I eat LCHF and 15-25% of my total daily calories come from protein depending on the day and a good portion of that comes from plants sources.

Darn you auto correct.

Edited by: JUSTEATREALFOOD at: 10/27/2013 (14:32)
RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
10/27/13 12:48 P

Renata - You seem to think that a majority of Americans did not eat this way just 60 years ago. How did they do it back then?

The problem is, there are still people alive who you can speak to, and learn from. Those that lived outside of the cities, ate a much lower carb diet than we do today.

Most low carbers eat MORE vegetables, so farming would increase, and my protein % hasn't gone up that much, so we wouldn't need to triple the amount of cows. What increases is fat %.

This study is based on moderate carb at 20%, and says that it is even healthier to eat 10% carbs. The problem is, all people think about when they hear low carb, is high protein. I eat 25-30 %, which isn't much higher than the RDA.

Edited by: RUSSELL_40 at: 10/27/2013 (12:59)
RENATARUNS SparkPoints: (4,367)
Fitness Minutes: (2,155)
Posts: 1,379
10/27/13 12:34 P

I'm not really sure where you're coming from, Russell. How people ate in the past versus how they ate today; and how much pollution and environmental damage is produced by the production of different kinds of foods; are two entirely unrelated questions. It's simply not debateable that agricultural production of animal products is far more demanding on energy, space (land), water, and fertilizer per calorie of food produced than is agricultural production of plants. All of those things are true. You can mitigate some of these factors, for instance by using range land that isn't suitable for agriculture anyway; or by using low(er) impact methods of farming the feed for all those animals, but you can't get rid of it entirely. The amount of calories in corn that it takes to feed one cow for a year is vastly larger than the amount of calories that animal will provide upon slaughter -- and every single one of those calories has its cost in energy and waste (in other words, pollution). It's basic physics, unescapable.

Hunting's great for those who do it, but that's hardly practical for the population we have now and hasn't been practical for any urban population for thousands of years. Even fishing is stressed, and there is vastly more edible protein in the seas than there could ever be on land. In short, what is most sustainable on a personal level, or in terms of a small population that can still escape its own pollution and meet its own energy needs -- that has next to nothing to do with what's most sustainable for the planet as a whole. People who want to eat a lot of meat need to accept that and live with it, not try to bury their heads in the sand.

RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
10/27/13 11:58 A

Certhia - I understand your idea. However my parents grew up on the farm in the 1940's-50's, and ate bacon and eggs daily, as well as meat and vegetables for meals. Some of that was farmed, and some was animals they hunted in the woods. They ate potatoes, which isn't low carb, but I think they burned it off, which we don't do today.

Still they ate over a lb of meat a day, and ate a very low carb diet. Sure, people in the cities ate higher carb, but a large section of America ate a much lower carb diet. So why would going back to eating lower carb result in pollution or food shortages now, when people ate that way for generations before?

Here in MI, we pay a company to fly around in a helicopter to shoot thousands of deer every year, so that we don't have overpopulation, and disease. There is plenty of meat. Plus, a certain chunk of America is going to not do low carb, even if the government chose to solely back that as the national diet. Just look at what we eat today.. it isn't the low fat diet that doctors want, it has been hijacked by food manufacturers.

Even amongst low carbers, many choose to do moderate carb. Have no fear, Twinkies aren't going

i think the greatest thing that could come out of studies like this, is that we might be able to stop trying to say 1 diet will fit all people. While I think low carb is vastly superior to a diet that has most Americans overweight, any diet that people do not choose to stick to is useless. Most people have been trained to think of fat as bad, and carbs as good, so they won't just change because someone tells them it is healthier. Still, low carb so far has been treated as a dangerous diet, even as millions of people see better health than average with no dangerous side effects. No one is asking for it to be used as the sole diet that we should eat, as low fat has been for just the last 40 years, just that it be recognized as an equal diet option.

It would take generations for people to realize how bad a low fat diet is, and change back to a lower carb diet in any significant numbers.

Still in the 1940's my parents ate lower carb, as did all their neighbors, during the baby boom. My grandparents had 6 kids in New York, and 9 in Pennsylvania. They ate bread rarely, as well as sweets. So there were plenty of people to feed, and they did so, with 90 % of their food coming from the woods, and their farm. Today, families are much smaller on average, and we can no longer drink from our rivers. We have pollution, and lack of food NOW.

Did they eat Atkins/Paleo? No, but since they ate lower carb from birth, they had no need to eat VERY low carb. They weren't overweight. My Dad graduated high school at 5'7" 153 lbs. That was normal back then. Even as a child in the 80's, we ate a much lower carb diet, since my parents were used to it. A hunk of roast beef, and a side of fruit, and a side of vegetables was a mainstay in my house, and breakfast was most often eggs. Only as I became a teenager, and we started drinking pop, and having mashed potatoes as a side did I start to put on weight.

If we are going to worry about pollution, and lack of food, then maybe that is something we can overcome with science. The idea that we should let millions of people eat food that is harmful to them, just because if they ate a healthy diet, we would have to figure out how to feed them, or cut down on pollution? That is absurd. At that point they could focus on those problems, instead of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer which have skyrocketed.

Why is it that no one is concerned about THOSE issues? We can have obesity, and disease, because THAT is easier to solve, than having enough food if we all ate meat and veggies? Or finding a way to cut down on pollution?

There are problems with everything, and we decide to fix what is wrong with them. However, high carb wasn't started to increase the amount of people who weren't hungry/ make it so there was enough food. It also wasn't started because it would cut down on pollution. It was started as a fight against obesity, which through the 1960's had started to increase. This might have been because in the 1950's, my parents got a McDonald's in town for the first time. Instead of noting the obvious link to fast food, and soda, they blamed fat.

How is that going so far? How about we start with letting people know that a low carb diet.. as well as a proper low fat diet, can help them maintain a proper weight. We can worry about the problems that pop up if a large percentage choose to eat low carb. I think solving those issues might be a lot easier than finding a cure for the obesity, and disease that has increased exponentially, since we switched to a " healthy " diet back in the mid-1970's.

We have expanded our age expectations at the same time we have gotten more obese, and disease riddled as a nation. I, for one, believe that the same people that managed to get these poorly fed people, who should have died at 50, to live till 80, can rise up, and meet the challenge of finding a way to feed people more meat, and vegetables, and if it does cause more pollution, find a way to combat that.

The other option is to continue having children with diabetes, and 30 year olds with heart problems, and obesity for most people. It seems that the argument is that we shouldn't tell people that low carb is healthier, because it would be too hard to feed them. Let's just keep them sick, and fat, on medicine, with a couple fun surgeries awaiting them in their 50's, after their first heart attack!

Edited by: RUSSELL_40 at: 10/27/2013 (12:41)
BIOTEC SparkPoints: (779)
Fitness Minutes: (12)
Posts: 3
10/27/13 11:00 A

animal products are NOT the way to be fat. most of it is from missed used plant foods.
like non natural sugars use in most food stuffs. potatoes are a plant based are the most missed used. McDonalds' produced over 100 million pounds of French fries a year. as an example. not all plant based foods are good for any one. some animal proteins can be used. but not all of one or the other is good. we are not cows needing plant based foods only. we need it all.
if we would limit the bad foods by taxiing it to death, maybe we would all be better off.

IMEMINE1 Posts: 6,143
10/27/13 9:32 A

I have been a vegetarian (most times VEGAN) for years and am proud of my husband for finally becoming Vegetarian after his stroke and watching Forks over Knives.
We believe in a plant strong diet and hate the slaughter and abuse that animals have to go through to make people obese and unhealthy.

CERTHIA SparkPoints: (22,539)
Fitness Minutes: (16,207)
Posts: 770
10/27/13 9:03 A

Hi Russell,
When I bring up sustainability, I am not thinking about on the individual level, but whether it is sustainable for humans as a species to eat low carb. I am afraid if all humans world-wide ate more meats and less grains we would have to deal with massive pollution as well as a scarce food-supply.

MICHELLEXXXX SparkPoints: (12,145)
Fitness Minutes: (5,920)
Posts: 3,765
10/26/13 2:20 P

I'm glad to see more LC support. I've seen many people's health greatly improve from implementing the lifestyle correctly.

Edited by: MICHELLEXXXX at: 10/26/2013 (14:20)
OLGA18 SparkPoints: (22,584)
Fitness Minutes: (16,273)
Posts: 1,203
10/26/13 2:08 P

I live in Stockholm and I have never heard anything about this study. You have to understand that the food here is different. For example when you fry bacon you are not left with a pan full of grease. Overall the food here is much healthier to begin with.

"Currently in Sweden, it is estimated that only 14 percent of the population are obese compared with one-third in the USA."
That's true, you rarely see overweight people here.

"One probable reason why this study was done in Sweden is that a lot of people were obvious already following such a diet. "
I dont believe that for a minute. It is not what I see.

DELLA81156 Posts: 201
10/26/13 12:49 P

I enjoyed your message. I believe when we eat animal meat or dairy products we injest chemicals and growth hormones. emoticon emoticon emoticon

Edited by: DELLA81156 at: 10/26/2013 (12:50)
10/26/13 12:48 P

I looked into Sweden's food recommendations last night and they were last updated in 2005 or 2006 (I forget which). There is no mention of LCHF. I keep hearing about Sweden leading the way for LCHF, which I think is awesome, but does anyone know is it individuals leading the way or a government backed initiative?

EXOTEC Posts: 3,327
10/26/13 10:44 A

Sustainability is truly a significant problem in trying to feed our overwhelming numbers. It's certainly easier to produce a field of grain than to raise animals on that land. I have to question the ethics of feeding for convenience, though. I guess it's better than not feeding at all. But for those of us who are fortunate enough to make those choices, I think we should rely far less on that "easy out."

Saturated fats have never been proven to be unhealthful. In fact, they're probably the most healthful fats; and they happen to reside in animal tissues. Most, at least.
I don't disagree with the (good) oils and nuts, etc... but the "cholesterol theory" and "saturated fat *hypothesis*" are exactly that: concepts which have not been proven. Yes, we're admonished that way, but the foundational research was never proven. That's why they're called "theories" and "hypotheses." Specifically (illustratively), the fat hypothesis did not separate the fat categories for *TRANS* fats from other fats. When that data is divided out separately, the research points instead to trans fats as the culprits. Not the saturated *animal* fats. They came forward to correct that idea, that trans-fats are bad. We all know that now. But they neglected to correct the misinformation about animal fats. Why should they? the no-fat/low-fat/reduced-fat "industry" is making a fortune with it. Do you really expect them to sacrifice their sacred cow on that altar? seriously.

The trouble with animal fats is that, when feedlot animals are "fed up" for slaughter, they're eating the same diet (with all the GMO feeds) that we've been steered toward. Take note: they're feeding them to gain - when we eat the same types of diet, we gain too! what a surprise (?!?). But fat in those animals becomes a repository for improper nutrition in the form of omega-6 fatty acids. When we eat that fat, we're eating the result of *their* faulty diet. I do try to reduce my consumption of fatty feedlot-finished meats on that count. Pastured and grass-finished? heck no. That's good fats.
The unfortunate thing is, no one - or rare and few individuals - comes forward to point these things out. They just go on allowing the average person to heap all animal fats into the same "bad" basket, regardless of reason. And that same average person will never question beyond the governmentally-derived recommendations. They only go back so far, and then adopt it hook, line, and sinker. And then wonder why their/our health is in the shape it's in.

Human nature can be a baffling topic.
I'm just happy to see Sweden has taken a stand based in science.

RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
10/26/13 10:39 A

I agree 100% with this diet. I was a 361 lb heart patient with diabetes, high cholesterol, and low HDL.

I started low carb to get the weight off, and have lost 159 lbs so far, but I have also gotten off all my diabetes, and cholesterol meds.

My A1C is 5.3
My cholesterol is 103
My HDL is up to 37 now that I have upped total fat to 60%, and saturated fats to 20% of my total diet from 24.
My BP is 95/65 ( I still take meds, but 1/2 what I used to, and it is greatly reduced.. was 140/90 )
My heart is pumping 3X as much blood per heartbeat ( getting stronger every echo ) 16 % before, now 45 % ejection rate.
My LDL is 51
my triglcerides are below 100.

The results of this study mirror mine in every way. I eat eggs, and butter, lots of chicken, red meat 2 X a week, and olive oil, as well as mayo, and 5-8 servings of vegetables a day. My ration looks more like 60 fat/10 carbohydrates/ 30 protein. At times I will go to 65/5/30.

My weight loss increases the higher my fat %, even if I keep calories the same. After 4.5 years on very low carb/ high animal fats, with results that make my cardiologist mouth drop open, and NO ill side effects, I think if done correctly, low carb can be very beneficial. As a heart patient, I would be the first to see negative side effects. The risk to a healthy person would be a lot less.

My only issue with low carb, was that my blood sugars dropped so fast, that I had low blood sugar reactions, until my doctor finally cut me off the meds.

What is really a shock to me is how tightly the experts cling to a diet that has made us more unhealthy than any diet ever before. 60% overweight, but they don't think it could be the diet? Time for another solution, and low carb has had great success for thos who do it correctly. If the experts got on board, and actually helped people eat a lower carb diet, the more strict phases of the diet would fade away. Only because of morbid obesity, and heart disease, and diabetes, has it been necessary to cut carbs so much. If they ate this way from birth, with advice from experts, they would be able to eat a much higher % of healthy carbs, because they would not be undoing the damage of 30-50 years of high carb living.

Certhia - the issues you bring up would be wonderful to discuss in more detail. There are many low carbers who have done this for years, so it is sustainable. Low carb will never be accepted by a majority however, but before 1974, we ate a much higher fat diet, with lower carbs, most of those from fruits.veggies. My mother's/father's diet was pretty low carb. They both grew up on farms.

I loved the article, and plan to read more articles on It is hard to see results yourself, and then hear a constant stream of negative comments by people who aren't seeing any decent results from their own way of eating. Of course, no one knows me, so they shouldn't take me at my word, but it is nice to see someone reach these same conclusions on their own.

CERTHIA SparkPoints: (22,539)
Fitness Minutes: (16,207)
Posts: 770
10/25/13 7:16 A

Interesting read. Thank you for sharing the link! I agree that limiting refined carbohydrates is generally promoting good health, and is especially important for those who have endocrine disorders like diabetes or metabolic syndrome. Regardless of this I am still on fence when it comes to promoting very low carb high (animal) fat diets for the general public. I'm concerned with sustainability and the environmental effects of a larger percentage of the world population eating such a diet. But I guess that is digressing from the main issue here...

-KELLYKAT- Posts: 834
10/25/13 2:08 A

I agree that our US food pyramid is all wrong. And that many ideas of a weight reduction diet are way off base. But I absolutely do not agree that animal fats are the fats we should be adding to our diet.

Nuts, seeds, avocados, olives, etc. I believe these are the fats that are the key to being healthy.

EXOTEC Posts: 3,327
10/24/13 8:32 P

Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Diet and Nutrition Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
organic plant protein (plantfusion) 7/15/2016 12:36:01 PM
Confusion about dietary ketosis 10/21/2016 5:09:25 PM
Vitamin A 2/25/2017 11:52:44 AM
Setting up the app 11/7/2016 3:04:56 PM
Ideas to eat like a normal person. 2/3/2017 7:40:01 AM