Trying Out a Low-Carb Diet

[Gumby]

Agreed.  There's no need to make this stuff complex!  Weight loss may not be easy, but it is simple.  If you burn more calories than you take in, you will lose weight.  You must create a calorie deficit.  All diets are beholden to this rule.

Which is why food selection is important. As Gary Taubes wrote in the New York Times back in 2002...

Nutrition researchers also played a role by trying to feed science into the idea that carbohydrates are the ideal nutrient. It had been known, for almost a century, and considered mostly irrelevant to the etiology of obesity, that fat has nine calories per gram compared with four for carbohydrates and protein. Now it became the fail-safe position of the low-fat recommendations: reduce the densest source of calories in the diet and you will lose weight. Then in 1982, J.P. Flatt, a University of Massachusetts biochemist, published his research demonstrating that, in any normal diet, it is extremely rare for the human body to convert carbohydrates into body fat. This was then misinterpreted by the media and quite a few scientists to mean that eating carbohydrates, even to excess, could not make you fat -- which is not the case, Flatt says. But the misinterpretation developed a vigorous life of its own because it resonated with the notion that fat makes you fat and carbohydrates are harmless.

As a result, the major trends in American diets since the late 70's, according to the U.S.D.A. agricultural economist Judith Putnam, have been a decrease in the percentage of fat calories and a ''greatly increased consumption of carbohydrates.'' To be precise, annual grain consumption has increased almost 60 pounds per person, and caloric sweeteners (primarily high-fructose corn syrup) by 30 pounds. At the same time, we suddenly began consuming more total calories: now up to 400 more each day since the government started recommending low-fat diets.

If these trends are correct, then the obesity epidemic can certainly be explained by Americans' eating more calories than ever -- excess calories, after all, are what causes us to gain weight -- and, specifically, more carbohydrates. The question is why?

The answer provided by Endocrinology 101 is that we are simply hungrier than we were in the 70's, and the reason is physiological more than psychological. In this case, the salient factor -- ignored in the pursuit of fat and its effect on cholesterol -- is how carbohydrates affect blood sugar and insulin.

Source: NYTimes: Gary Taubes: What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?

This will be much easier and healthier if you stick with nutrient-dense whole foods.  Get sufficient protein in every meal.  Get your carbs from fibrous fruits and veggies whenever possible but no need to get overly freaky about this.  Potatoes and brown rice are just fine.  Up your omega-3 intake.  Avoid highly processed foods.  Always chew your calories and drink plenty of water.

Exactly. Eat a balanced diet of nutrient-dense whole foods.

Nobody ever got fat because they couldn't stop eating hard apples and blueberries.

True, but people have died from eating a diet of too much fruit. Fruit is very high in fructose and it's very hard on the gut. Steve Jobs swore off meat and followed extreme diets, which included eating only one or two foods, such as carrots or apples for weeks on end. Diets like that stress the liver and pancreas, and contribute to diabetes and many other blood sugar disorders, and have even been linked to pancreatic cancer. Jobs had a very rare pancreatic cancer known as islet cell carcinoma (it accounts for approximately 1.3% of pancreatic cancers), which starts in the insulin-secreting beta cells. Coincidence? Sure he was very thin, but clearly he was not very healthy. If he just ate a reasonably balanced diet — such as what humans have been doing for quite some time — he probably would have lived a relatively long life.

[Tortoise]

An eating plan of whole, nutrient-dense foods that leaves you with a calorie deficit is nutritionally all that you need.  It can take many forms.  Nobody ever got fat because they couldn't stop eating hard apples and blueberries.

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is a "hard apple"? I Googled it and only found references to "hard apple cider," i.e. the alcoholic beverage.

I completely agree with you that a net calorie deficit is all that's required to lose weight. I've had success using a combination of calorie counting and exercise. The main reason I'm trying out a low-carb diet instead of doing that again is because I'm searching for "the path of least resistance," so to speak, for weight loss. Both calorie counting and disciplined exercise require sustained will power. By contrast, simply changing one's diet without obsessive calorie counting or a disciplined exercise regimen involves far less will power and thus seems more sustainable over the long term for the average person.

Incidentally, back when I was calorie counting and losing weight, I noticed that the foods in my diet that seemed to contribute the most calories were almost always carb-loaded snack foods and sugary desserts. So in retrospect, my cutting way back on those foods was effectively a reduced-carb diet. Maybe not technically low-carb, but definitely reduced-carb.

[Gumby]

Incidentally, back when I was calorie counting and losing weight, I noticed that the foods in my diet that seemed to contribute the most calories were almost always carb-loaded snack foods and sugary desserts. So in retrospect, my cutting way back on those foods was effectively a reduced-carb diet. Maybe not technically low-carb, but definitely reduced-carb.

Once you learn about insulin and insulin resistance. It will all start to make sense. If nothing else, Gary Taubes's book will explain that phenomenon.

One sign that you have insulin resistance is the presence of a good layer of abdominal fat. There are ways to reduce insulin resistance (and increase insulin sensitivity). Often insulin resistance is caused by a Magnesium deficiency (as well as other nutrients). Almost everyone is Magnesium deficient these days, since there is no more Magnesium in the soils and water (depending on where you live). Transdermal magnesium (via pure Magnesium Oil) is a very safe and effective way to help reverse magnesium deficiency. And many people notice that it reverses a lot of aches, pains and inflammation (both internal and external).

[Lone Wolf]

Which is why food selection is important. As Gary Taubes wrote in the New York Times back in 2002...

I agree with you but I cringe at the way Taubes' carpet bombs "carbs" rather than just sugary, processed foods.  This is just like what happened with "fats" in the 80s when we all started misguidedly eating low-fat diets and sweatin' with Richard Simmons.  (For the record, the Richard Simmons part did no harm.)

There's a big difference between a canister of cod liver oil and a boiling vat of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil.  Likewise, a bowl of berries and a mango is quite unlike a 44 ounce soda.  That is what I think Taubes is missing -- all of these macronutrients are fine and useful things.  What's missing from the standard American diet is satiety and nutrient-density.

True, but people have died from eating a diet of too much fruit. Fruit is very high in fructose and it's very hard on the gut. Steve Jobs swore off meat and followed extreme diets, which included eating only one or two foods, such as carrots or apples for weeks on end.

Amazing.  I had never heard that he did this.  Where's the protein?  Where are the essential fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals?  It sounds like he cut out two macronutrients from his diet.  It sounds terribly devoid of actual nutrition.

Behaviorally speaking, this seems quite bizarre to me, too.  I imagine that it had to have been very stressful for family and friends as well.  I'm no conformist but if my wife or a close friend ate that way I would be very alarmed.

While I think it's a bad idea, I can at least get the reasons that people give up meat.  But all animal protein as Jobs did?  Not even eggs or dairy?  I just don't see any good way to manage a decision like that.

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is a "hard apple"?

Sorry, I was just throwing in a confusing adjective.  I meant that a firm, fresh "hard" apple has that nice chew-to-calorie ratio that IMO you'd want out of a good carbohydrate source.  Quite unlike, say, a soda or a "low fat" snack cake. 

[Gumby]

Which is why food selection is important. As Gary Taubes wrote in the New York Times back in 2002...

I agree with you but I cringe at the way Taubes' carpet bombs "carbs" rather than just sugary, processed foods.  This is just like what happened with "fats" in the 80s when we all started misguidedly eating low-fat diets and sweatin' with Richard Simmons.  (For the record, the Richard Simmons part did no harm.)

There's a big difference between a canister of cod liver oil and a boiling vat of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil.  Likewise, a bowl of berries and a mango is quite unlike a 44 ounce soda.  That is what I think Taubes is missing -- all of these macronutrients are fine and useful things.  What's missing from the standard American diet is satiety and nutrient-density.

Yes. Exactly. But, low-carbers eat small amounts of fruit. Nothing wrong with fruit as a treat. But, lets' be honest, fruit is not nutrient dense. Fruit is mostly water, fiber, and fructose — with some macronutrients that are difficult to digest. Hardly nutrient-dense. Too much fruit will spike your insulin and wreck your gut. It's a good idea to eat a banana and some berries each day, but there's no good reason why fruit should be a large portion of your diet.

Herbivores eat plants and fruits. If/when that happens (as it does not happen with factory farming) the herbivores concentrate its lifetime of fresh green grass and plant nutrients into their fat and organs to literally become nutrient-dense animal foods for carnivores and omnivores to feast on. The result is meat and fat containing all the vitamins and minerals found in fresh produce, not only in more concentrated form, but also one that is easy to digest. Herbivores do the hard fermentation and digestion work for us, and we eat their organs and fat for their nutrients. If animals can't be found, we have also have a nice set of molars to help us get some nutrition from fruits and plants. Again, it's extremely difficult to unlock the nutrients from plants. It seems to be more efficient to either have bacteria or other animals to do it for us.

True, but people have died from eating a diet of too much fruit. Fruit is very high in fructose and it's very hard on the gut. Steve Jobs swore off meat and followed extreme diets, which included eating only one or two foods, such as carrots or apples for weeks on end.

Amazing.  I had never heard that he did this.  Where's the protein?  Where are the essential fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals?  It sounds like he cut out two macronutrients from his diet.  It sounds terribly devoid of actual nutrition.

Behaviorally speaking, this seems quite bizarre to me, too.  I imagine that it had to have been very stressful for family and friends as well.  I'm no conformist but if my wife or a close friend ate that way I would be very alarmed.

His diet was sporadically mentioned throughout the Walter Isaacson biography on Jobs. He really had an eating disorder. Dr. Kaayla Daniel blogged a list of every mention of food in the Jobs biography (with page numbers for reference). Here is the list...

• Jobs came to appreciate organic fruits and vegetables as a teenager when a neighbor taught him how to be a good organic gardener and to compost. (14)
• Between his sophomore and junior hear of high school, he began smoking marijuana regularly and by his senior year was dabbling in LSD as well as exploring the mind bending effect of sleep deprivation (18-19)
• Toward the end of his senior year in high school, he began his "lifelong experiments with compulsive diets, eating only fruits and vegetables so he was as lean and tight as a whippet"  (31)
• He attended the love festivals at the local Hare Krishna temple, and went to the Zen center for free vegetarian meals. (35)
• He  was greatly influenced by the book Diet for a Small Planet by Frances Moore Lappe.   At that point he swore off meat for good and began embracing extreme diets, which included purges, fasts or eating only one or two foods , such as carrots or apples for weeks on end.  (36)
• For awhile at college, Jobs lived on Roman Meal cereal.   He would buy a box, which would last a week, then flats of dates, almonds and a lot of carrots.   He made carrot juice with a Champion juicer, and at one point turned "a sunset-like orange hue."  (36)
• His dietary habits became more obsessive when he read the Mucusless Diet Healing System by Arnold Ehret.     Jobs then favored eating nothing but fruits and starchless vegetables, which he said prevented the body from forming harmful mucus, and determined to regularly cleanse his body through prolonged fasts.   That meant no more Roman Meal cereal — or any bread, grains, or milk for that matter.   At one point, he spent an entire week eating only apples, and then began to try even purer fasts.  He started with two day fasts and eventually stretched them out to a week or more, breaking them with large amounts of water and leafy vegetables.    "After a week, you start to feel fantastic," he said.  "You get a ton of vitality from not having to digest all this food.  I was in great shape  I felt I could get up and walk to San Francisco anytime I wanted."   (36)
• As a $5 an hour technician at Atari, he was known as "a hippie with b.o." and "impossible to deal with."   He clung to the belief that his fruit-heavy vegetarian diet would prevent not just mucus but also body odor.   As Isaacson writes "It was a flawed theory." (43)
• "He was doing a lot of soul-searching about being adopted .  . .  (with) the primal scream and the mucusless diets, he was trying to cleanse himself and get deeper into his frustration about his birth."  (51)
• He was a fan of the Whole Earth Catalog and particularly taken by the final issue, which came out in 1971 when he was still in high school.   On the back cover it said "Stay Hungry.  Stay Foolish." (59)
• The name Apple Computers came to him when he was on one of his fruitarian diets.  "I had just come back from the apple farm.  It sounded fun, spirited and not intimidating.   Apple took the edge off the word 'computer.'"  (63)
• His mother Clara Jobs didn't mind losing most of her house to piles of computer parts and house guests, but she was frustrated by her son's increasingly quirky diets.  She would roll her eyes at his latest eating obsessions.  She just wanted him to be healthy, and he would be making weird pronouncements like, "I'm a fruitarian and I will only eat leaves picked by virgins in the moonlight."  (68)
• He was still convinced against all evidence that his vegan diet meant that he didn't need to use a deodorant or take regular showers.   . .  .   At meetings people had to look at his dirty feet.  Sometimes to relieve stress, he would soak his feet in the toilet.  (82)
• A colleague who recommended he bathe more often was told that "in exchange" he would have to read fruitarian diet books.  "Steve was adamant that he bathed once a week, and that was adequate as long as he was eating a fruitarian diet." (82-83)
• In 1979 or so he "put aside drugs, eased away from being a strict vegan, and cut back the time he spent on Zen retreats."   (91)
• He decreed that the sodas in the office refrigerator be replaced by Odwalla organic orange and carrot juices."   (118)
• The kitchen was stocked daily with Odwalla juices (142)
• At the launch of the Lisa computer in 1983, he ate a special vegan meal at the Four Seasons restaurant  (152)
• He had edged away from his strict vegan diet for the time being and ate vegetarian omelets. (155)
• In 1984 in Italy, Jobs demanded a vegan meal and became extremely angry when the waiter very elaborately proceeded to dish out a sauce filled with sour cream.  (185)
• The meal for his 30th birthday celebration included goat cheese and salmon mousse. (189)
• He had a lot of mannerisms.  He bit his nails.   His hands were "slightly and inexplicably yellow" and in constant motion. (223)
• At a meal with Mitch Kapor,  the chairman of Lotus software, Jobs was horrified to see Kapor slathering butter on his bread, and asked, "Have you ever heard of serum cholesterol?"   Kapor responded, "I'll make you a deal. You stay away from commenting on my dietary habits, and I will stay away from the subject of your personality."  (224)
• At a 1988 NeXT product launch, the lunch menu included  mineral water, croissants, cream cheese, bean sprouts. (233)
• Jobs was a vegetarian and so was Chrisann, the mother of his daughter Lisa.  Lisa was not vegetarian, but Jobs was fine with that.   "Eating chicken became her little indulgence as she shuttled between two parents who were vegetarians with a spiritual regard for natural foods."  Jobs's "dietary fixations came in fanatic waves," and he was "fastidious"  about what he ate.  Lisa watched him "spit out a mouthful of soup one day after learning that it contained butter." (259-260)
• "Even at a young age Lisa began to realize his diet obsessions reflected a life philosophy, one in which asceticism and minimalism could heighten subsequent sensations.  He believed that great harvests came from arid sources, pleasure from restraint.  He knew the equations that most people didn't know:  Things led to their opposites."   (259-260)
• Once he took Lisa on a business trip to Tokyo and they stayed at the Okura Hotel.   At the elegant downstairs sushi bar, Jobs ordered large trays of unagi sushi, a dish he loved so much that he allowed the warm cooked eel to pass muster as vegetarian.    Lisa later wrote, "It was the first time, I'd felt with him, so relaxed and content, over those trays of meat; the excess, the permission and warmth after the cold salads, meant a once inaccessible space had opened.  He was less rigid with himself, even human under the great ceilings with the little chairs with the meat and me."  (260-261)
• Jobs had hired a hip young couple who had once worked at Chez Panisse as housekeepers ands vegetarian cooks (264)
• At his wedding to Laurene Powell, the cake was in the shape of Yosemite's Half Dome.  It was strictly vegan and more than a few of the guest found it inedible.  (274)
• "Since his early teens, he had indulged his weird obsession with extremely restrictive diets and fasts.  Even after he married and had children, he retained his dubious eating habits.   He would spend weeks eating the same thing — carrot salad with lemon, or just apples — and then suddenly spurn that food and declare that he had stopped eating it.  He would go on fasts, just as he did as a teenager and he became sanctimonious as he lectured others at the table on the virtues of whatever eating regimen he was following."  (477)
• Jobs's wife, Laurene Powell, had been a vegan when they first married, but after her husband's first cancer operation, the partial Whipple procedure, she began to diversify the family meals with fish and other proteins.  Their son, Reed, who had been a vegetarian, became a "hearty omnivore."  They knew it was important for Steve to get diverse sources of protein. (477)
• Early in 2008, Jobs's eating disorders got worse.   On some nights he would stare at the floor and ignore all of the dishes set out on the long kitchen table.  He lost 40 pounds during the spring of 2008.
• Dr James Eason "would even stop at the convenience store to get the energy drinks Jobs liked." (485)
• He remained a finicky eater, which was more of a problem than ever.  He would eat only fruit smoothies and he would demand that seven or eight of them be lined up so he could find an option that might satisfy him.  He would touch the spoon to his mouth for a tiny taste and pronounce  'That's no good.  That one's no good either.'"   His doctor  lectured him: "You know this isn't a matter of taste.  Stop thinking of this as food.  Start thinking of it as medicine." (486)
• Early in 2010, Jobs went to dinner and ordered a mango smoothie and plain vegan pasta.  (505)
• At the launch of the  iPad2, Isaacson reported "For a change he was eating, though still with some pickiness.  He ordered fresh squeezed juice, which he sent back three times, declaring that each new offering was from a bottle, and a pasta primavera which he shoved away as inedible after one taste.   But then he ate half of my crab Louise salad and ordered a full one for himself followed by a bowl of ice cream."  (527)
• "Jobs's eating problems were exacerbated over the years by his psychological attitude toward food.  When he was young, he learned that he could induce euphoria and ecstasy by fasting.   So even though he knew that he should eat — his doctors were begging him to consume high-quality protein –lingering in the back of his subconscious, he admitted was his instinct for fasting and for diets like Arnold Ehret's fruit regimen that he had embraced as a teenager.  Powell kept telling him it was crazy. 'I wanted him to force himself to eat,' she said 'and it was incredibly tense at home.'"  (548-549)
• Bryar Brown, their part-time cook, would prepare an array of healthy dishes, but Jobs would touch his tongue to one or two dishes and then dismiss them all as inedible.  One evening he announced, "I could probably eat a little pumpkin pie," and the even-tempered Brown created a beautiful pie from scratch in an hour.  Jobs ate only one bite, but Brown was thrilled."  (549)
• During the final years of his life, Powell talked to eating disorder specialists and psychiatrists to try to get help, but her husband shunned them.   (549)

On a side note. I'll also point out, as MG did, that carbs are very beneficial after a workout, and should be consumed for recovery.

[MediumTex]

When talking about creating a caloric deficit, isn't it also important to pay attention to the rate of metabolism?

As calories are reduced, doesn't the body respond by lowering the rate of metabolism (at least in some cases), thus making it hard for simply reducing calories to result in weight loss based on a simple cause/effect approach to creating a caloric deficit?

The people who I have seen lose the most weight actually seemed to be eating more calories, they were just doing it using more and smaller meals spread throughout the day (which apparently helps to increase the rate of metabolism), and by eating less garbage-y food in general.

[Gumby]

When talking about creating a caloric deficit, isn't it also important to pay attention to the rate of metabolism?

Yes. It really is more complex than overeating. What you eat matters. Again, Gary Taubes explains (this time from a Readers' Digest clipping on his website):

“There’s this absolutely fundamental idea when it comes to weight and obesity—that the way we get fat is that we take in more calories than we expend. It’s the gluttony and sloth hypothesis: We eat too much and exercise too little. It sounds undeniable, as commonsensical as can be, and it’s actually nonsense—it doesn’t tell us anything meaningful about why we get fat. If I get fatter, it’s obvious that I must have overeaten. But if you ask the question, Why did you overeat? Well, that question I can’t answer— not with the calories-in/calories-out theory of weight gain.

“People react to this as though I’m questioning the laws of thermodynamics. I’m not questioning them; I’m saying they’re not relevant. Yes, if you’re getting fatter, you’re taking in more calories than you’re burning— the question is why. There’s a ridiculously simple alternative hypothesis, which is that you don’t get fat because you’re overeating. You overeat be- cause you’ve developed a disorder in the way your fat tissue is regulated.”?
Source: http://garytaubes.com/wp-content/upload ... b-2011.pdf

And he explains the flaws of the calorie in/calorie out theory in a very recent article on the Daily Beast...

...The very first childhood-obesity clinic in the United States was founded in the late 1930s at Columbia University by a young German physician, Hilde Bruch. As Bruch later told it, her inspiration was simple: she arrived in New York in 1934 and was “startled”? by the number of fat kids she saw—“really fat ones, not only in clinics, but on the streets and subways, and in schools.”?

What makes Bruch’s story relevant to the obesity problem today is that this was New York in the worst year of the Great Depression, an era of bread lines and soup kitchens, when 6 in 10 Americans were living in poverty. The conventional wisdom these days—promoted by government, obesity researchers, physicians, and probably your personal trainer as well—is that we get fat because we have too much to eat and not enough reasons to be physically active.

...

At its heart is a simple “energy balance”? idea: we get fat because we consume too many calories and expend too few. If we could just control our impulses—or at least control our environment, thereby removing temptation—and push ourselves to exercise, we’d be fine. This logic is everywhere you look in the official guidelines, commentary, and advice. “The same amount of energy IN and energy OUT over time = weight stays the same,”? the NIH website counsels Americans, while the CDC site tells us, “Overweight and obesity result from an energy imbalance.”?

The problem is, the solutions this multi-level campaign promotes are the same ones that have been used to fight obesity for a century—and they just haven’t worked. “We are struggling to figure this out,”? NIH Director Francis Collins conceded to Newsweek last week. When I interviewed CDC obesity expert William Dietz back in 2001, he told me that his primary accomplishment had been getting childhood obesity “on the map.”? “It’s now widely recognized as a major health problem in the United States,”? he said then—and that was 10 years and a few million obese children ago.

There is an alternative theory, one that has also been around for decades but that the establishment has largely ignored. This theory implicates specific foods—refined sugars and grains—because of their effect on the hormone insulin, which regulates fat accumulation. If this hormonal-defect hypothesis is true, not all calories are created equal, as the conventional wisdom holds. And if it is true, the problem is not only controlling our impulses, but also changing the entire American food economy and rewriting our beliefs about what constitutes a healthy diet.

Oddly, this nutrient-hormone-fat interaction is not particularly controversial. You can find it in medical textbooks as the explanation for why our fat cells get fat. But the anti-obesity establishment doesn’t take the next step: that fat fat cells lead to fat humans. In their eyes, yes, insulin regulates how much fat gets trapped in your fat cells, and the kinds of carbohydrates we eat today pretty much drive up your insulin levels. But, they conclude, while individual cells get fat that way, the reason an entire human gets fat has nothing to do with it. We’re just eating too much.

I’ve been arguing otherwise. And one reason I like this hormonal hypothesis of obesity is that it explains the fat kids in Depression-era New York. As the extreme situation of exceedingly poor populations shows, the problem could not have been that they ate too much, because they didn’t have enough food available. The problem then—as now, across America—was the prevalence of sugars, refined flour, and starches in their diets. These are the cheapest calories, and they can be plenty tasty without a lot of preparation and preservation. And the biology suggests that they are literally fattening—they make us fat, while other foods (fats, proteins, and green leafy vegetables) don’t.
Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com//content/n ... iling.html

So, while we all want to think that getting fat is simply overeating, but it's pretty clear that (like most things) the answers are far more complex than anyone realizes. And as Taubes shows us, the simple calorie in/calorie out theory doesn't explain obese Depression-era children, during the 1930s.

[Lone Wolf]

When talking about creating a caloric deficit, isn't it also important to pay attention to the rate of metabolism?

As calories are reduced, doesn't the body respond by lowering the rate of metabolism (at least in some cases), thus making it hard for simply reducing calories to result in weight loss based on a simple cause/effect approach to creating a caloric deficit?

The people who I have seen lose the most weight actually seemed to be eating more calories, they were just doing it using more and smaller meals spread throughout the day (which apparently helps to increase the rate of metabolism), and by eating less garbage-y food in general.

The metabolic rate can be a stubbornly hard thing to tick up significantly, but staying active, carrying as much lean mass as possible, and raising the amount of protein in one's diet do get you some effect.  Definitely, starvation diets should be avoided at all costs!

Meal frequency is a controversial topic.  I typically shoot for "beach condition" with a slightly higher meal frequency (like what you're referring to) but some popular schools of thought like LeanGains advocate a very low feeding frequency.  Three meals a day can also be effective.  My view is that this probably doesn't matter too much and can be personalized.

Yes. Exactly. But, low-carbers eat small amounts of fruit. Nothing wrong with fruit as a treat. But, lets' be honest, fruit is not nutrient dense. Fruit is mostly water, fiber, and fructose — with some macronutrients that are difficult to digest. Hardly nutrient-dense.

Well, on the fructose issue, it's good to keep some sense of scale in mind.  A grapefruit, for example, has got about 10% of the fructose you'd get in something like a soda.  In addition to that, it comes packed with fiber and all kinds of great micronutrients like flavonoids, antioxidants, Vitamin C, B vitamins, etc.  This is wonderful stuff!

I'm from the "omnivore" school of thought.  Things like veggies, fruit, potatoes, brown rice, etc. have a lot to offer and make a great complement to the proteins, fats, and other important nutrients one should be getting from excellent sources like meat, dairy, and eggs.

On a side note. I'll also point out, as MG did, that carbs are very beneficial after a workout, and should be consumed for recovery.

Yes, this is good advice.  Here's another point where your understanding seems so much more nuanced than that of Taubes.  Carbs play an essential role in a physical lifestyle.

[Gumby]

Well, on the fructose issue, it's good to keep some sense of scale in mind.  A grapefruit, for example, has got about 10% of the fructose you'd get in something like a soda.  In addition to that, it comes packed with fiber and all kinds of great micronutrients like flavonoids, antioxidants, Vitamin C, B vitamins, etc.  This is wonderful stuff!

Exactly. Which is why Grapefruit in the very middle of the Low Carb pyramid. Don't assume that "low carb" means lots of meat. It doesn't.

I'm from the "omnivore" school of thought.  Things like veggies, fruit, potatoes, brown rice, etc. have a lot to offer and make a great complement to the proteins, fats, and other important nutrients one should be getting from excellent sources like meat, dairy, and eggs.

Yes. But, you are perfectly describing the Low Carb Pyramid. Meat is just the lower middle of the low carb pyramid. Fruit is on there too. Take a look...

[align=center][/align]

[Lone Wolf]

Yes. But, you are perfectly describing the Low Carb Pyramid. Meat is just the lower middle of the low carb pyramid. Fruit is on there too. Take a look...

That's interesting!  I'm encouraged to see that.  Looks much more rational.  I was instead going by statements like this Taubes quote: “If we’re predisposed to put on fat, it’s a good bet that most fruit will make the problem worse, not better.”?

My understanding was that Taubes recommends something like 25-30 grams of carbs per day.  Am I mistaken?  Needless to say, there wouldn't be much fruit happening at that range!

[Gosso]

Regarding counting calories, this is not necessary if one is consuming real food.  In fact it might be a good idea to overfeed on nutrient dense foods for a few weeks to tell the body that there is plenty of food.  Once the body realizes this it will automatically reduce hunger and settle down to a healthy weight.  This has to do with leptin which is far more important than the subordinate insulin.

The mere fact that leptin resistance is extremely common in obese individuals suggests that it may simply be an adaptation to excess body weight. It has been suggested that the major physiological role of leptin is not as a “satiety signal”? to prevent obesity in times of energy excess, but as a “starvation signal”? to maintain adequate fat stores for survival during times of energy deficit,[59][60] and that leptin resistance in overweight individuals is the standard feature of mammalian physiology, which possibly confers a survival advantage.[61]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptin

Gary Taubes did a great thing by exposing the fraud behind the fear of saturated fat, but as LW said he made the exact same mistake as the saturated fat researchers by crowning insulin and carbs as the new bogeyman.  It is far more complicated than that and it all points back to the brain.

[Gumby]

Gary Taubes did a great thing by exposing the fraud behind the fear of saturated fat, but as LW said he made the exact same mistake as the saturated fat researchers by crowning insulin and carbs as the new bogeyman.

Well, let's be clear. Gary Taubes did not invent the low carb diet or the hormonal-imbalance theory. "Low carb" as a weight-loss diet dates back to at least 1863, when William Banting first published his Letter on Corpulence Addressed to the Public. Furthermore, the hormonal-imbalance theory was refined during the late 1950s and early 1960s.

See: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/banting.html

Banting-type diets were tested with very good results over the past century — typically allowing people to lose the most weight over the shortest amount of time, but those diets went out of favor when the diet-heart hypothesis and lipid hypothesis became gospel.

Anyway, you are entirely correct that the situation is far more complex than even Taubes will admit. But, the truth is that researchers do not fully understand leptin yet. I suspect the book has been more successful by keeping it all very simple, as it dumbs down good calories vs. bad calories for people who don't really know how to eat well.

[MachineGhost]

That website is run by Sarah Pope, who is a member of the Weston A. Price Foundation — which advocates for traditional foods. I know MG has been critical of WAPF, but I'm still not seeing how the criticism against WAPF holds up. Most of the criticism against WAPF seems to be based on corporate-based junk science as far as I can tell. Again, I could be wrong, but it's hard to argue that traditionally-prepared foods didn't sustain cultures around the world for very long periods of time. If anything, every aspect of the modern diet seems to be the problem (soy, anti-nutrients, lack of healthy fats, lack of natural cholesterol, too much refined sugar and carbs). Nothing about modern food seems to have helped our population become healthier as far as I can tell.

I'm skeptical of their simplistic "one size fits all" dogma (didn't you just write about how the simpler a conclusion the more likely it is to be B.S.?), not technically the "nourishing traditions".  But I do think that any traditions should be buttressed by conclusive, modern, peer reviewed scientific evidence (useless as it seems to be).  That seemed to work pretty well for the Eskimo and Mediterranean diets before those people went all Westernized.  Really, the only point of contention that I can see is with what percentage of calories saturated fat intake should be composed of.  I conservatively maintain that until there is better evidence, it should be balanced equally along with unrefined mono and poly fats.  WPF would have you massively overindulge in saturated fats like the Atkins Foundation, i.e. any non-lean meats would promote such.  I wish there was better clarity on that situation as its hard to overcome decades of anti-saturated fat propaganda.  There needs to be a "smoking gun" to be truly convincing.

[Gumby]

My understanding was that Taubes recommends something like 25-30 grams of carbs per day.  Am I mistaken?  Needless to say, there wouldn't be much fruit happening at that range!

Well, his diet — like Atkins — is designed to put people into ketosis. Ketosis probably isn't very healthy over the long term.

I still don't see the appeal of eating a lot fruit. I mean, by all means have a little fruit each day if you feel inclined. But, fruit is not nutrient dense. As I said, it's pretty difficult to get lots of nutrition from fruit or vegetables. You do get some nutrition, but not a lot.

Here is a comparison... Food for thought:



Per 100g
Phosphorus[br]in mg
Iron[br]in mg
Zinc[br]in mg
Copper[br]in mg
B2[br]in mg
A[br]in IU
C[br]in mg
B6[br]in mg
B12[br]in mcg


Apple
000.6
0.1
0.05
00.04
0.02
00000
07.0
0.03
000


Carrots
031.0
0.6
0.3
00.08
0.05
00000
06.0
0.1
000


Grapefruit
018.0
0.1
0.1
00.04
0.05
00000
02.6
0.1
000


Red Meat
140
3.3
4.4
00.2
0.2
00040
00
0.07
001.84


Liver
476
8.8
4.0
12.0
4.2
53,400
27
0.73
111.3



Why don't fruits and vegetables have any Vitamin A listed? The reason is because the "Vitamin A" in fruits and vegetables is not the real Vitamin A that is found in animal meat and fats — known as Retinol. Fruits and vegetables have no fat, and therefore no true Vitamin A (Retinol). Fruits and vegetables have "Carotenoids" which must be converted into Vitamin A by the body. If your gut isn't in tip-top shape, and you don't have access to true Retinol, you won't be able to convert much of the carotenoids to Vitamin A.

According to Wikipedia...

The conclusion that can be drawn from the newer research is that fruits and vegetables are not as useful for obtaining vitamin A as was thought; in other words, the IUs that these foods were reported to contain were worth much less than the same number of IUs of fat-dissolved oils and (to some extent) supplements. This is important for vegetarians, as night blindness is prevalent in countries where little meat or vitamin A-fortified foods are available.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A

Animals and fish — particularly organ meat — are by far the best source of food-based vitamins.

[MachineGhost]

His diet was sporadically mentioned throughout the Walter Isaacson biography on Jobs. He really had an eating disorder. Dr. Kaayla Daniel blogged a list of every mention of food in the Jobs biography (with page numbers for reference). Here is the list...

That was pretty eye opening.  I can state, without a doubt based on my own dietary experiences, Jobs had a severe psychological eating disorder and he should have been institutionalized for therapy.  Its one thing to go on short term "extreme" diets for detoxification and healing purposes when you're sick, but to adopt it as a long-term lifestyle is just extreme radicalism.  Clinical experience indicates not everyone can thrive on a low-fat, low-protein, high vegetable diet and should not be eating like that.  Jobs didn't that accept reality to his great peril.  His reputed intolerance to others was likely no different than that of Hitler, another extreme vegetarian.

Even though the very first computer I ever used was an Apple ][, I've never particularly been enamored with Apple or Steve Jobs, and this is certainly another nail in his coffin for me.

[Gumby]

Really, the only point of contention that I can see is with what percentage of calories saturated fat intake should be composed of.  I conservatively maintain that until there is better evidence, it should be balanced equally along with unrefined mono and poly fats.

The real problem with polyunsaturated fats, particularly in a bottle, is that they become rancid and oxidized very easily when exposed to heat, oxygen and moisture. Most refined oils are rancid before they are even bottled. As these fats become rancid, they release free-radicals that contribute to a wide range of diseases. Monounsaturated fats are a little better, but they still go rancid fairly easily (that's why olive oils are typically sold in dark bottles).

But anyway, I think you have this notion that all animal fats are just saturated fat. That's not true.

Duck and Goose Fat are semisolid at room temperature, containing about 35% saturated fat, 52% monounsaturated fat (including small amounts of antimicrobial palmitoleic acid) and about 13% polyunsaturated fat.

Chicken Fat is about 31% saturated, 49% monounsaturated (including moderate amounts of antimicrobial palmitoleic acid) and 20% polyunsaturated

Lard or pork fat is about 40% saturated, 48% monounsaturated (including small amounts of antimicrobial palmitoleic acid) and 12% polyunsaturated.

Beef and Mutton Tallows are 50-55% saturated, about 40% monounsaturated and contain small amounts of the polyunsaturates, usually less than 3%. Suet, which is the fat from the cavity of the animal, is 70-80% saturated.

Olive Oil contains 75% oleic acid, the stable monounsaturated fat, along with 13% saturated fat, 10% omega-6 linoleic acid and 2% omega-3 linolenic acid

Peanut Oil contains 48% oleic acid, 18% saturated fat and 34% omega-6 linoleum acid

Sesame Oil contains 42% oleic acid, 15% saturated fat, and 43% omega-6 linoleum acid

Source: http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-f ... y-on-fats/

I fail to see where a traditional diet doesn't automatically give us very nice ratios of saturated, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats. Nature already gives us a wide range of fats in each animal, and WAPF fully supports consumption of these naturally occurring fats.

[Benko]

Guys,

Jobs was following what sounds like a macrobiotic diet, which I make no claims for and am NOT recommending, but has many people who advocate it for cancer patients.  It is a super restrictive diet.  Whether it helps because of the content of the diet itself, I don't know.  I suspect not..  HInt: cancer patients can be grouped into those who's attitude is:

A: make me better doc.
B. What can I do to help make myself better (from the cancer)
C. those patients would do ANYTHING e.g. crawl over broken glass, etc to get better.

Guess which group has more patients that get better?  Perhaps pts get better on the macrobiotic diet (if they do) because they are , or became group C patients because no one else who is not that driven would be able to actually follow that diet given how restrictive it is.

[Gumby]

Benko... That's interesting. Though, the diet described in Jobs' biography mostly took place before he was diagnosed with cancer. Dr. Kaayla Daniel believes that, in addition to other factors, there may be a link between Jobs' extreme diet and his being diagnosed with an extremely rare form of pancreatic cancer.

[Tortoise]

Okay, let's talk breakfast.

Most days I completely skip breakfast. No cereal, no oatmeal, no meat, no fruit, nothing. I just don't seem to work up an appetite until around lunchtime--about five hours after I wake up in the morning.

Probably the main reason for that is because I typically eat a small snack just before bedtime. If I don't do that, sometimes my stomach will start growling after I get into bed, which makes it hard to fall asleep. Anyhow, that snack apparently holds me over until lunchtime the next day.

I'm aware that doing this runs completely counter to most accepted wisdom, which says you shouldn't eat anything within about 2 hours of bedtime--especially carbs--and should always eat a good breakfast ("the most important meal of the day" according to somebody very important... maybe it was Jesus Christ himself).

I guess don't see the big difference between (a) eating a late-night snack and then skipping breakfast and (b) avoiding late-night snacks and then eating breakfast. It seems like either way, you fast for about 12 hours--it's just a question of which 12 hours: 8 PM to 8 AM, say, or 12 AM to 12 PM. Is there an important difference between the two, and is one more effective than the other in terms of losing weight or maintaining a healthy weight?

[Storm]

Tortoise, yes.  I don't know the study off hand, but they followed many people on all different types of diets, low fat, low carb, low calorie, vegetarian, etc, and the single greatest factor in successful weight loss was eating breakfast.  Regardless of caloric surplus or deficit, people that eat a healthy breakfast with protein in it (preferably animal protein), are more likely to lose weight and keep it off.

I really makes a big deal.  Also you should probably avoid snacking and foods after dinner.  If you are consistently eating food every 3-4 hours so that your blood sugar doesn't crash, the feeling of being hungry in bed will probably go away.

[Gosso]

Okay, let's talk breakfast.

Most days I completely skip breakfast. No cereal, no oatmeal, no meat, no fruit, nothing. I just don't seem to work up an appetite until around lunchtime--about five hours after I wake up in the morning.

Probably the main reason for that is because I typically eat a small snack just before bedtime. If I don't do that, sometimes my stomach will start growling after I get into bed, which makes it hard to fall asleep. Anyhow, that snack apparently holds me over until lunchtime the next day.

I'm aware that doing this runs completely counter to most accepted wisdom, which says you shouldn't eat anything within about 2 hours of bedtime--especially carbs--and should always eat a good breakfast ("the most important meal of the day" according to somebody very important... maybe it was Jesus Christ himself).

I guess don't see the big difference between (a) eating a late-night snack and then skipping breakfast and (b) avoiding late-night snacks and then eating breakfast. It seems like either way, you fast for about 12 hours--it's just a question of which 12 hours: 8 PM to 8 AM, say, or 12 AM to 12 PM. Is there an important difference between the two, and is one more effective than the other in terms of losing weight or maintaining a healthy weight?

I'm not sure if breakfast is good or bad.  Ghrelin plays an important part in determining when you become hungry.  It basically follows the rhythm of you past feeding behaviour, and makes you hungry at roughly the same time each day.  So if you forced yourself to eat breakfast then eventually ghrelin would synch up with this and make you hungry in the morning.

Some weightlifters (ie Leangains) prefer to skip breakfast since ghrelin will cause extra human growth hormone to be released.  Personally I find skipping breakfast causes too much stress (especially at work).  So I eat a big bowl of full fat yogurt, berries, and granola -- it's easy to make and bring to work, plus it provides plenty of smooth energy without the crash of cereal.

[Storm]

Quote from Dr. Mark Hyman: 

Q. How important is breakfast, and what should I eat for this meal?

A. Breakfast is probably your most important meal, because it sets you up for the entire day.

Why?

Because it sets up your metabolism for the entire day.  People who eat breakfast sustain long-term weight loss.  In a study of 3,000 people who sustained a weight loss of 70 pounds and kept it off for 6 or more years, all but 4 percent ate breakfast regularly. The other thing they had in common is that they exercised more than people who didn’t keep the weight off.

That was it — eating breakfast and exercising!  It’s important to eat protein for breakfast, as in a protein shake, eggs, nuts, or dairy or soy yogurt.  This is critical for setting up your metabolism to work the rest of the day.  Even if you hard-boil some eggs the night before, put them in the fridge, and run out the door the next day with a bag of 2 hard-boiled eggs to eat on the road, it’s better than not eating anything.

[Gumby]

Quote from Dr. Mark Hyman:

Not that it matters, but Hyman has been fighting off criticism for his previous endorsements of soy. Now he has to spend the rest of his career defending a fairly toxic plant. He responds by pointing to fermented soy products as being healthy. Nevermind that most people don't eat fermented soy. It's difficult for a TV personality to criticize powerful sponsors.

[Storm]

Quote from Dr. Mark Hyman:

Not that it matters, but Hyman has been fighting off criticism for his previous endorsements of soy. Now he has to spend the rest of his career defending a fairly toxic plant. He responds by pointing to fermented soy products as being healthy. Nevermind that most people don't eat fermented soy. It's difficult for a TV personality to criticize powerful sponsors.

I realize he has been promoting soy for a while, probably since before some of the criticism about it came out.  But, the reason I like him is that he bases most of his research on scientific studies, and isn't afraid to change his opinion if research shows him to be incorrect.  I really did learn a lot about low GI diet from him, and it really worked to lose about 20 pounds of weight for me.

[Gumby]

Congrats on using low GI..!

the reason I like him is that he bases most of his research on scientific studies, and isn't afraid to change his opinion if research shows him to be incorrect.

I find that actually a bit scary, considering most scientific studies are either flawed or misleading.