Trying Out a Low-Carb Diet

[Tortoise]

I just listened to an interesting EconTalk podcast in which the guest was Gary Taubes discussing his book Why We Get Fat. He made several interesting points supporting the idea that obesity is largely the result of diets consisting of a high proportion of carbohydrates.

The podcast motivated me to finally just try out a low-carb diet for at least 2 months to see what effect it has on my weight. I'm not fat, but I'm definitely not as thin as I was in my early- to mid-20s. I've had some success with calorie counting and exercise, but I never stick to them, and the weight comes back as soon as I stop. I want to try something different now, and a low-carb diet seems like an obvious choice. It won't require me to count calories or to exercise with strict discipline--just to avoid carb-rich foods as much as possible.

While I'm trying out this low-carb diet, I'd like to educate myself on the logic and science surrounding the topic. Ideally I'd like to read books with high-quality arguments both for and against low-carb diets. From experience I know that when I subject myself to just one side of an argument, I tend to get sucked in and start to lose my objectivity. I don't want that to happen here.

So how about it, folks? What do you think are the highest-quality sources of information out there (ideally in book form) on the role of carbohydrates in weight gain, and perhaps in heart disease as well? Books that attempt to debunk the carb theory of obesity and heart disease are welcome, too.

And if some of you would also like to share your favorite low-carb meal and snack ideas, I'd love to hear them!

[WildAboutHarry]

The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living: An Expert Guide to Making the Life-Saving Benefits of Carbohydrate Restriction Sustainable and Enjoyable

Pretty good...

[Gosso]

Joe Rogan recently had Robb Wolf, a low carb / paleo guru, on his podcast.  It was pretty good.

I tried hardcore Paleo / Low Carb for three months and I can honestly say it was the worst three months of my life.  The first week and half were rough as I became "fat adapted" then I had a week of boundless energy and felt great, but once my body ran out of glucose I completely fell apart.  I developed a horrible rash over my entire body (I thought it was candida die-off, dermatologist took a biopsy which showed it was eczema), hair falling out, dry skin, horrible digestion and stomach pains, thyroid doubled in size -- I was basically a leper.  I eventually gave up and started eating carbs again (I was thoroughly in the mindset that low carb was a gift from God, so this was a difficult choice) and I instantly felt better and everything slowly returned to normal...it was a miracle!

I fully admit that I'm probably a genetic freak and operate better with a "normal" amount of carbs...I'm one of those guys that can eat whatever he wants and not get fat (knock-on-wood).  The reason I went low carb was for the claim of improved energy and general well-being.

Low carb will cause you to lose weight.  I'd say give it at least a month.  If you have problems then reintroduce some carbs and see if it helps.

A good default diet is to simply eat real food, and avoid the processed crap and sugary drinks.  Also, learn to enjoy cooking, think up new and interesting recipes.  18 hour fasts might help as well, but I find this dramatically increased my stress level at work, so I only do it on the weekends.

Stephan Guyenet has a nice critic of Gary Taubes (they had a war of the blogs when Gary acted like a total douche to Stephan at one of his talks) and the Carbohydrate Hypothesis: The Carbohydrate Hypothesis of Obesity: a Critical Examination. 

Conclusion

I hope you can see by now that the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is not only incorrect on a number of levels, but it may even be backward.  The reason why obesity and metabolism researchers tend not to take this idea seriously is that it is contradicted by a large body of evidence from multiple fields.  I understand that people like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom", but the fact is that obesity is a complex state and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses.

Carbohydrate consumption per se is not behind the obesity epidemic.  However, once overweight or obesity is established, carbohydrate restriction can aid fat loss in some people.  The mechanism by which this occurs is not totally clear, but there is no evidence that insulin plays a causal role in this process.  Carbohydrate restriction spontaneously reduces calorie intake (as does fat restriction), suggesting the possibility that it alters body fat homeostasis, but this alteration likely occurs in the brain, not in the fat tissue itself.  The brain is the primary homeostatic regulator of fat mass, just as it homeostatically regulates blood pressure, breathing rate, and body temperature.  This has been suspected since the early brain lesion studies of the 1940s (47) and even before, and the discovery of leptin in 1994 cemented leptin's role as the main player in body fat homeostasis.  In some cases, the setpoint around which the body defends these variables can be changed (e.g., hypertension, fever, and obesity).  Research is ongoing to understand how this process works.

I used to be a big Gary Taubes fan, but lost faith once I notices that he was blatantly ignoring studies and research that refuted his hypothesis.

[Benko]

1. There is no one optimal diet that is right for everyone.  

GEt sufficient protein and play with the amounts of carbs and fats to see what your body " likes" (keeping in mind 2).

2. Whatever one thinks of carbs, lentils, beans, certain grains (I use barley and slow cooking oatmeal) i.e. lower glycemic carbs are relatively healthier than sugars (and perhaps many grains) that people in the US often eat in whopping quantities.  

All of the healthy ones above still have the lectin issue (google it) which is another story but can be relevant and cause GI issues for some people (though eat right for your type is probably not true).

3. I'm presently eating a diet recommended by my TCM (chinese medicine) weaknesses and feel better than ever and my body "seems to like it".  Specifically I eat grains daily (barley and slow cooking oatmeal) along with large amounts of veggies (cooked since my digestion is very weak) along with 6 ounces of animal protein with each meal.

[Gumby]

A good default diet is to simply eat real food, and avoid the processed crap and sugary drinks.  Also, learn to enjoy cooking, think up new and interesting recipes.

I agree 100%. If you want to be healthier — and maybe lose a little weight — just avoid foods that spike your insulin. In other words, think more like a diabetic would. There's plenty of evidence that highly refined grains and refined sugar will cause inflammation and degenerating insulin spikes in the body. Gary Taubes explains how insulin and insulin resistance plays a major role in weight gain and health issues.

For long-term benefits, some people (myself included) believe that one can thrive by eating a fairly mixed diet, like your ancestors ate — including fresh seafood, pastured meat and eggs, traditional lacto-fermented foods, traditionally prepared carbs (soaked overnight in a light natural acid to neutralize phytic acid in the grains and legumes) or some traditional sourdough or sprouted-grain breads, as well as more incorporating traditional forms of dairy: milk, cheese, yogurt and kefir. Those are examples of "real food". If you can find something at a local farmer's market, there's a decent chance it's good for you when incorporated into a balanced diet. I actually expected to gain weight on that traditional diet, but ended up losing about 8 pounds. And yes, I felt awful as my body adjusted during the first week.

If nothing else, avoid man-made oils/fats (no canola, no hydrogenated oils) and make an effort to cook with a natural fat that can withstand heat, such as extra virgin coconut oil. (Traditional "raw" dairy is really only a good idea if you live near a reputable farm that you can visit).

Just keep in mind that almost anything you do is going to be better than a carb-heavy Standard American Diet (SAD). Eating high quality dog food would probably be better than a SAD. No joke.

Also, eating a low-carb diet doesn't really mean eating tons of meat and fat. For instance, here is a "low carb pyramid" to give you an idea of what it means to be "low carb":

[align=center][/align]

As you can see, your "low carb" plate should really have a lot of low-carb vegetables on it. Vegetables are the foundation of a low carb diet.

And as I said, I do believe that traditionally-prepared carbs are a very good idea. But, there's no reason to be eating highly refined carbs or refined sugar. You'd be surprised where sugar winds up in our food supply — it's in practically everything. (Replacing refined sugar with pure maple syrup or coconut sugar are better low glycemic alternatives).

[MediumTex]

I have found that if a food is gross after sitting out for more than an hour, it probably isn't good for you.

That's not to say that all foods that pass the one hour test ARE good for you, it's just that I have found that many foods that look gross after one hour weren't all that healthy to start with.

One of my favorite relatively healthy meals is getting a "bowl" from a Chipotle-type restaurant with only the following: rice, pinto beans, onions and peppers, chicken (or pork), lettuce and pico de gallo.  I find this flavorful and filling, and it seems to have very few "bad" things in it.  It also looks pretty good after an hour.

[Tortoise]

If nothing else, avoid man-made oils/fats (no canola, no hydrogenated oils) and make an effort to cook with a natural fat that can withstand heat, such as extra virgin coconut oil. (Traditional "raw" dairy is really only a good idea if you live near a reputable farm that you can visit).

I'll need to do some serious research on oils and fats before I use coconut oil for my cooking. When I was growing up, my father (an M.D.) told us incessantly that coconut oil was probably the single most unhealthy edible substance you could put into your body. The opinions on coconut oil seem very polarized--evidently it either (a) clogs your arteries with brutal efficiency or (b) is one of the healthiest oils you can cook with

I tried hardcore Paleo / Low Carb for three months and I can honestly say it was the worst three months of my life.  The first week and half were rough as I became "fat adapted" then I had a week of boundless energy and felt great, but once my body ran out of glucose I completely fell apart.  I developed a horrible rash over my entire body (I thought it was candida die-off, dermatologist took a biopsy which showed it was eczema), hair falling out, dry skin, horrible digestion and stomach pains, thyroid doubled in size -- I was basically a leper.  I eventually gave up and started eating carbs again (I was thoroughly in the mindset that low carb was a gift from God, so this was a difficult choice) and I instantly felt better and everything slowly returned to normal...it was a miracle!

Yikes. Are you sure it was the lack of carbs that caused those strange conditions, or could it possibly have been a new type of food that you introduced into your diet in lieu of the carbs?

One of my favorite relatively healthy meals is getting a "bowl" from a Chipotle-type restaurant with only the following: rice, pinto beans, onions and peppers, chicken (or pork), lettuce and pico de gallo.  I find this flavorful and filling, and it seems to have very few "bad" things in it.

Good suggestion, although I'm not sure if the rice would be appropriate for this low-carb experiment. My understanding is that rice and other very starchy foods like potatoes are very similar to refined sugar in terms of causing insulin to spike.

On the other hand, rice is a staple in most Asian cultures--and obesity seems to be much less prevalent in Asian cultures compared to American culture. So I wonder what the story is there.

[Gumby]

When I was growing up, my father (an M.D.) told us incessantly that coconut oil was probably the single most unhealthy edible substance you could put into your body. The opinions on coconut oil seem very polarized--evidently it either (a) clogs your arteries with brutal efficiency or (b) is one of the healthiest oils you can cook with

Right. But, your father likely also believed that trans fats were harmless. We now know that trans fats are the single most unhealthy edible substance you can put in your body.

The reason your father believed that coconut oil was so terrible for you was that 40 years ago researchers did a study where they fed animals hydrogenated coconut oil that was purposefully altered to remove any trace of essential fatty acids (EFAs). At the time, few people knew that hydrogenation was bad for you. The animals became essential fatty acid deficient (as you would expect) and their cholesterol and arteriosclerosis skyrocketed. Any diet that is devoid of essential fatty acids leads to very high cholesterol and arteriosclerosis. Everyone was mislead into thinking coconut oil was the problem. It wasn't. The problem was hydrogenation, to remove EFAs.

Natural coconut oil is really quite good for you. Most people find that it tends to normalize one's cholesterol levels. Additionally it resists oxidation, stands up to heat very well, is very stable, and has many anti-microbial and anti-viral properties. Many people eat it by the spoonful.

You can read the full story here.

Coconut oil has sustained tribal life in the tropics for centuries — these indigenous cultures were generally free from the modern degenerative diseases. There has even been some rather convincing evidence that coconut oil can help stave off, and even reverse, Alzheimer's Disease.

Anyway, I don't want to divert this thread. But, it's worth doing the research and looking into. Your oil's smoke point, resistance to rancidity, light, oxidation and heat are important factors when going on a low-carb diet.

Many people have been trained to use olive oil these days, but there are many problems with olive oil. First of all, olive oil doesn't stand up to heat that well. Second, it becomes rancid pretty quickly (that's why the bottles are tinted... to block out light). Third, most olive oils are not pure and have been adultered with cheap canola oil without the customers' knowledge. It's a big problem. Olive oil is best used cold — as a topping — when it comes from a good source. But, I wouldn't heat it up very much other than in a low-temperature sauce.

[Pointedstick]

Fascinating stuff as usual Gumby. What about Safflower oil? Hows that stand up to canola, olive, and coconut oils?

[Gumby]

Fascinating stuff as usual Gumby. What about Safflower oil? Hows that stand up to canola, olive, and coconut oils?

Safflower oil has a pretty low smoke point. It breaks down very quickly when heated. When an oil breaks down too easily, you'll often notice that your stainless steel pans are difficult to clean. Whereas, if you cook with a high quality and stable coconut oil, the cleanup is a breeze.

Mary G. Enig — who was one of the original pioneering researchers to prove that Trans Fats were incredibly dangerous — has a good run-down of different oils. She writes:

Safflower, Corn, Sunflower, Soybean and Cottonseed Oils all contain over 50% omega-6 and, except for soybean oil, only minimal amounts of omega-3. Safflower oil contains almost 80% omega-6. Researchers are just beginning to discover the dangers of excess omega-6 oils in the diet, whether rancid or not. Use of these oils should be strictly limited. They should never be consumed after they have been heated, as in cooking, frying or baking. High oleic safflower and sunflower oils, produced from hybrid plants, have a composition similar to olive oil, namely, high amounts of oleic acid and only small amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids and, thus, are more stable than traditional varieties. However, it is difficult to find truly cold-pressed versions of these oils.
Source: http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-f ... y-on-fats/

Despite her contribution to discovering the dangers of Trans Fats, her views have been widely criticized by the established research community. Of course, most of the criticism against her first came from her contrarian views on Trans Fats — which cost her significant funding. Her Trans Fat research has now been vindicated, but she is still widely criticized by the edible-oil-funded research community for favoring natural saturated fats.

Again, people have been cooking with highly stable, saturated fats for years. On a molecular level, a saturated fat molecule is very stable. It's only recently that people switched to unstable man-made oils that are engineered to retain a liquid state at room temperature.

I really don't want to hijack this thread into a discussion about oils. But, I just want to point out that low-carbers need to do their research on oil composition, stability and resistance to oxidation/rancidity.

[Benko]

What about Safflower oil? Hows that stand up to canola, olive, and coconut oils?

Safflower oil is an omega 6, which are generally not recommended (given the unfavorable ratio of omega 3s to omega 6s in most peoples diets i.e. most people eat to much omega 6 and not enough omega 3 as it is).

[Gumby]

2. Whatever one thinks of carbs, lentils, beans, certain grains (I use barley and slow cooking oatmeal) i.e. lower glycemic carbs are relatively healthier than sugars (and perhaps many grains) that people in the US often eat in whopping quantities.  

All of the healthy ones above still have the lectin issue (google it) which is another story but can be relevant and cause GI issues for some people (though eat right for your type is probably not true).

One of my favorite relatively healthy meals is getting a "bowl" from a Chipotle-type restaurant with only the following: rice, pinto beans, onions and peppers, chicken (or pork), lettuce and pico de gallo.  I find this flavorful and filling, and it seems to have very few "bad" things in it.

So, here's the deal with legumes... Anti-nutrients.

Lectin is a kind of anti-nutrient. Though, supposedly they can be neutralized by heat and cooking as well as the enzymes from eating fermented foods. In other words, eat a varied diet and cook your beans properly. What most people forget these days is that legumes are full of anti-nutrients and need to be prepared in a traditional manner:

Another common example of Antinutriets researched is phytic acid, which forms insoluble complexes with calcium, zinc, iron and copper. Proteins can also be antinutrients, such as the trypsin inhibitors and lectins found in legumes. These enzyme inhibitors interfere with digestion. Another particularly widespread form of antinutrients are the flavonoids, which are a group of polyphenolic compounds that include tannins. These compounds chelate metals such as iron and zinc and reduce the absorption of these nutrients, but they also inhibit digestive enzymes and may also precipitate proteins. However, polyphenols such as tannins have anticancer properties, so drinks such as green tea that contain large amounts of these compounds might be good for the health of some people despite their antinutrient properties.

Antinutrients are found at some level in almost all foods for a variety of reasons. However, their levels are reduced in modern crops, probably as an outcome of the process of domestication. Nevertheless, the large fraction of modern diets that come from a few crops, particularly cereals, has raised concerns about the effects of the antinutrients in these crops on human health. The possibility now exists to eliminate antinutrients entirely using genetic engineering; but, since these compounds may also have beneficial effects (such polyphenols reduce the risk of cancer, heart disease or diabetes), such genetic modifications could make the foods more nutritious but not improve people's health.

Many traditional methods of food preparation such as fermentation, cooking, and malting increase the nutritive quality of plant foods through reducing certain antinutrients such as phytic acid, polyphenols, and oxalic acid. Such processing methods are widely-used in societies where cereals and legumes form a major part of the diet. An important example of such processing is the fermentation of cassava to produce cassava flour: this fermentation reduces the levels of both toxins and antinutrients in the tuber.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinutrient

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinutrient

Traditionally, cultures around the world would acid soak or lacto ferment their legumes/beans before cooking them. For instance, Native American Indians knew the importance of traditional soaking to eliminate anti-nutrients. Many older cookbooks include these steps as well.

However, in today's modern world, few people understand this important step. It's been lost to time-saving convenience. When you eat legumes or beans at a restaurant, or from a can, you are eating all of the anti-nutrients. It's generally not good for your body.

Soy is a good example of this. Soy is highly toxic when consumed without fermentation. Ancient cultures only used fermented soy products. Miso, soy sauce, tempeh are all examples of nutritious and traditional fermented soy foods.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fe ... y_products

But, when you consume soy milk, or processed foods containing soy (which most do) you are mostly consuming toxic anti-nutrients.

Grains, were traditionally soaked as well. Colonial settlers used to soak their porridges overnight (perhaps in a little acidic buttermilk) before reheating them the next day. Sourdough bread uses extended lacto-fermentation which helps reduce anti-nutrients. These traditional methods would reduce the phytic acid and make the grains more digestible.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytic_acid

So, a low carb diet just avoids many of these anti-nutrients altogether. But, with traditional preparation, one can unlock many of the nutritious properties of grains and legumes to make them more digestible.

[MachineGhost]

One of my favorite relatively healthy meals is getting a "bowl" from a Chipotle-type restaurant with only the following: rice, pinto beans, onions and peppers, chicken (or pork), lettuce and pico de gallo.  I find this flavorful and filling, and it seems to have very few "bad" things in it.  It also looks pretty good after an hour.

"Hold the rice, double the beans".  Denial ain't a river in Egypt.

[MachineGhost]

So how about it, folks? What do you think are the highest-quality sources of information out there (ideally in book form) on the role of carbohydrates in weight gain, and perhaps in heart disease as well? Books that attempt to debunk the carb theory of obesity and heart disease are welcome, too.

I don't know if you need to go to such a degree for practical living.

The basic principle is that spiking your insulin is anti-catabolic (anti-protein breakdown).  When insulin is spiked, your bloodstream is emptied of lipids, glucose and amino acids.  If this occurs when your muscles are not in a glucose-depleted state or are expressing certain genetic patterns, then the glucose will be shuttled to your fat cells.  Keep doing this over time, your fat cells will become engorged and multiply, and all your cells will become insulin resistant and can no longer clear the bloodstream of glucose, of which the chronic excess will damage your organs and speed up sugar-protein crosslinking 400%.  The pancreas will also burn out as the beta cells die off.  If you add in excess calories and inactivity which is anti-anabolic (anti-protein growth), then your muscle to fat ratio will get worse over time as the proportion of fat to muscle increases.

The mitigating factor in what determines whether or not there is a high insulin spike to any given food is the post-digestive absorption rate.  What slows that down is the presence of soluble fiber.  With certain soluble fibers established by clinical evidence, one could in theory eat the worst refined and processed garbage and not ever develop insulin resistance and eventual diabetes.  But that seems a silly way to go about things.

So as a rule, do not ever eat starchy/refined carbs and fat together.  And avoid eating carbs except before and a short time after working out.  Since we do need to exercise to maintain muscle mass (unless you're happy to be "skinny fat"), there's no need to avoid all carbs, all the time.  Insulin is both a hormone and a drug, it's best to respect it as such.

[Benko]

1.  Thanks GUmby!  Great information.

I would wonder if there are still people with "gut issues" who might still do better after a trial of avoiding foods high in these, but I suspect what you said would solve most of the problems for many/most people.  

Soy has other issues e.g. phytoestrogens and I would still avoid completely feeding it to your infant, and only eating it moderately if you're an adult male.

2. MG:
He is talking about eating carbs and the insulin spike/blood sugar rise after your eat them

The mitigating factor in what determines whether or not there is a high insulin spike to any given food is the post-digestive absorption rate.  What slows that down is the presence of soluble fiber.  With certain soluble fibers established by clinical evidence, one could in theory eat the worst refined and processed garbage and not ever develop insulin resistance and eventual diabetes.

Almost all grains spike insulin/blood sugar more than is desirable (barley is one of the few that does not).  Even slow cooking oatmeal spikes insulin enough that some "experts" do not recommend it for this reason.  I am not suggesting anyone else do it, but since MG mentioned it, I'll say that I do consume soluable fiber i.e. shitload of guar gum caps or pectin caps before I eat my morning oatmeal, barley or other grain (I'm going to try millet and buckwheat).   THis is in addition to eating 6 oz protein and fat (1 tbsp olive and coconut oil) with the oatmeal.

Spiking blood sugar is one of the mechanisms of aging.

3. Perhaps we should rename this the permanent portfolio and nutrition forum.

[One day at a time]

Benko,

Any further thoughts on avoiding phytoestrogens...it seems like
some of the healthiest diets, epidemiologically speaking, have a lot of soy products in them, ie. Japan, pacific islands, etc? 

[Pointedstick]

Benko,

Any further thoughts on avoiding phytoestrogens...it seems like
some of the healthiest diets, epidemiologically speaking, have a lot of soy products in them, ie. Japan, pacific islands, etc? 

Most of the soy products they consume are fermented, I believe.

[Gumby]

Benko,

Any further thoughts on avoiding phytoestrogens...it seems like
some of the healthiest diets, epidemiologically speaking, have a lot of soy products in them, ie. Japan, pacific islands, etc? 

Most of the soy products they consume are fermented, I believe.

That's correct. According to Wikipedia...

Many people have claimed soybeans in Asia were historically only used after a fermentation process, which lowers the high phytoestrogens content found in the raw plant. However, terms similar to "soy milk" have been in use since 82 CE, and there is evidence of tofu consumption that dates to 220.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean

It's worth mentioning that some Tofus are fermented, such as "pickled tofu."

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu#Fermented

Traditional cultures often used pickling and fermentation to preserve their foods, before refrigeration existed. Whether they knew it or not, those traditional preparations were crucial to eliminating the anti-nutrients. When the convenience of refrigeration was invented, Tofu didn't need to be fermented anymore. Nevertheless, miso, tempeh, natt? and soy sauce are still fermented even today.

[Gumby]

So.. I have a question. My wife and I have significantly cut back our sugar consumption over the past two months. On two separate occasions, we indulged in sugar while out with friends — one occasion was a birthday party, the other we were guests for dinner. The next day (both times) we felt like we had been drugged. It seems we had a sugar hangover: extreme fatigue, brain fog, general exhaustion. What's physically happening to make us feel so awful from a little sugar? Two months ago we wouldn't have even noticed a difference after desserts like that!

Anyone know what was going on in our bodies?

[Tortoise]

While Gumby is waiting for an answer to his question, I'll pose one of my own.

Is one beer a day compatible with a low-carb diet? I realize that beer is very high-carb, but the key here is that I limit myself to one per day on average.

Beer is just one of those things I love so much I can probably never give up completely. I'm a beer nut. Drinking it makes me feel great and helps me relax at the end of a long day, plus medical studies have shown that drinking one or two alcoholic beverages per day is linked to higher longevity.

All things in moderation, right?

[Storm]

So.. I have a question. My wife and I have significantly cut back our sugar consumption over the past two months. On two separate occasions, we indulged in sugar while out with friends — one occasion was a birthday party, the other we were guests for dinner. The next day (both times) we felt like we had been drugged. It seems we had a sugar hangover: extreme fatigue, brain fog, general exhaustion. What's physically happening to make us feel so awful from a little sugar? Two months ago we wouldn't have even noticed a difference after desserts like that!

Anyone know what was going on in our bodies?

I definitely don't partake of sugar very often, but when I do, I usually have the sugar crash a couple hours later, not the next day.  I'm not sure the exact mechanism but I think it has to do with the insulin response causing a drop in blood sugar.  I believe this sugar rush, insulin response, blood sugar crash roller coaster has a lot to do with how people become overweight.  A couple hours after a large meal with sugar in it, you will start to feel hungry again due to the crash, even though you've already consumed too many calories.

[MachineGhost]

Anyone know what was going on in our bodies?

If I had to guess, it sounds like it could have been wheat (gluten) intolerance since sugar and wheat are together it so many sweet foods, but also possible that your glucose metabolism enzymes have been downregulated.  You might want to do some experiments with pure sugar without wheat and see if the same effect happens, such as with those coconut water sugar-bombs.

[Gosso]

I tried hardcore Paleo / Low Carb for three months and I can honestly say it was the worst three months of my life.  The first week and half were rough as I became "fat adapted" then I had a week of boundless energy and felt great, but once my body ran out of glucose I completely fell apart.  I developed a horrible rash over my entire body (I thought it was candida die-off, dermatologist took a biopsy which showed it was eczema), hair falling out, dry skin, horrible digestion and stomach pains, thyroid doubled in size -- I was basically a leper.  I eventually gave up and started eating carbs again (I was thoroughly in the mindset that low carb was a gift from God, so this was a difficult choice) and I instantly felt better and everything slowly returned to normal...it was a miracle!

Yikes. Are you sure it was the lack of carbs that caused those strange conditions, or could it possibly have been a new type of food that you introduced into your diet in lieu of the carbs?

I also thought it was a food allergy, so I began taking meticulous notes of everything I was eating and any symptoms.  Eventually I was down to eating only ground beef, butter and asparagus, yet the symptoms continued to get much worse.  I eventually gave up and ate a big bowl of oatmeal, and I instantly felt better.  I continued to eat a normal amount of carbs and the symptoms began improving from that point forward.

I tried going back to low carb a few times since then, and a small rash would develop within a few days.  I increase the carbs and it heals.  It seems my immune system goes haywire without carbs.

But don't let me deter you, low carb has worked for many people, but just be wary of warning signs.

So.. I have a question. My wife and I have significantly cut back our sugar consumption over the past two months. On two separate occasions, we indulged in sugar while out with friends — one occasion was a birthday party, the other we were guests for dinner. The next day (both times) we felt like we had been drugged. It seems we had a sugar hangover: extreme fatigue, brain fog, general exhaustion. What's physically happening to make us feel so awful from a little sugar? Two months ago we wouldn't have even noticed a difference after desserts like that!

Anyone know what was going on in our bodies?

Gumby, this is one reason why I don't like exclusion diets, since it will lead to sensitivities of the excluded food.  For example I thought milk was a large source of my problems, so I cut it out of my diet.  Once I reintroduced it I had the classic lactose intolerance symptoms.  But rather than give up I decided to consume a small amount of milk daily for a week, and eventually I could drink a glass just fine.  It took the body some time to begin manufacturing more lactase enzymes.  (I realize not all people have the ability to make lactase, in which case they should avoid milk)

I'm not saying you should start chowing down on candy, but maybe a little sugar in the morning coffee/tea, or a little desert dessert after dinner might help to keep you somewhat tolerant of sugar.  Also having a sweet after dinner is probably the best time to consume it since it will mix in with dinner.

Or you could have experienced a placebo effect, since you felt guilty for stepping outside of the diet and assumed bad things would result.

I have found that the less I worry about my diet, the healthier I have become (less stress, anxiety, guilt).  I simply try to eat three real food meals a day (saturated fat, carbs, veggies, and meat), limit (but don't completely eliminate) junk food / sugary drinks, and it seems to work pretty well.

[WildAboutHarry]

Is one beer a day compatible with a low-carb diet? I realize that beer is very high-carb, but the key here is that I limit myself to one per day on average.

In my earlier days I was inordinately fond of beer.  To paraphrase Will Rogers, I never met a beer I didn't like.

When I went low carb (almost 8 years ago) I quit beer (and alcohol in general, and caffeine) cold turkey.  The caffeine deprivation headaches were the worst, but only lasted about three days.

After a couple of years I added back the coffee, and added back alcohol (wine, occasional martinis, occasional scotch, etc.)  Low carb stuff.  I stayed away from beer, except for the very, very, very rare instance when dining out.

However, there is nothing like a very cold beer on a very hot day after mowing the lawn or pulling weeds, etc.  So I searched through all of the low carb beers.  Most are abysmal, but Michelob Ultra isn't bad if the weather is very hot and the beer is very cold.  2.6 grams of carbs per bottle.

[Reub]

Gumby are you sure that you weren't really drugged? A man with your vast knowledge has to be very careful these days.