Low Fat vs. Low Carb Diet

If you want to know, look at the world's best foods. The world's best foods for humans are fruits and vegetables, and the calorie make up of fruits and vegetables is high carb/low fat.

Eating a whole foods, plant based diet, low in fat, and high in carbohydrates has been shown to decrease your chances of getting serious life threatening diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

For optimal health, the best diet is low fat.

OK, let's answer the question. Yes, they both provide weight loss benefit, but neither is optimal for health, immediate, or long term success. To answer the question directly, here is how you should eat for optimal health, weight loss, and disease prevention.

I agree with you, I wouldn't necessarily recommend either.

As far as that chart you posted, I would disagree with some of that. For one, it would seem awfully low in protein for what the research indicates is the optimal range for lean mass retention on a diet. Also, while I agree that fruits, vegetables and other whole foods should make up the majority of one's diet, however, some context is needed. For example, an ultramarathon runner needs a massive amount of carbohydrates to support his training and events. If he were to attempt to meet his carbohydrate needs with fruits, veggies and whole grains, he wouldn't likely be able to stomach that volume of food and still compete, and the fiber intake would likely handcuff him to the toilet.

I must respectfully disagree. It is not low in protein, it is optimal in protein. The author himself was an Olympic figure skater, and advises professional and olympic athletes regarding their diet Naturally, as an athletic person's activity level increases, they will need to eat more food, and their protein level increases as their caloric needs increase. Plenty of marathon runners are following this plan as well.

It's a myth that a vegan or near vegan diet is low in protein. I've been hitting my protein requirements every day without any extra effort, not to mention exceeding all of my micronutrient requirements.

If you're talking about the RDA in protein of .8g/kg of bodyweight, then research has clearly shown superior lean mass retention while in a caloric deficit with a protein intake that is double that.

There is also a high correlation between animal product intake with cancer and heart disease, which is also clearly researched. (This is coming from an avid hunter and former high meat consumption kind of guy.)

I have no problem with your opinions, unless you say something questionable and try to pass it off as fact. Using the words "high correlation" and "clearly researched" is an attempt to make your opinions truth, while discrediting others.

I'm sorry, but the correlation between animal products and cancer and heart disease is NOT fact. The quality of animal products is a major factor though. Some of the studies that you are probably alluding to are based on people eating a modern diet full of processed meats, bad fats, and other non meat processed junk. There are far too many factors that cannot be isolated in most nutrition research, so while the information may be useful, it cannot be "fact" or even necessarily good for everyone.

How do you explain so many aboriginal people not having cancer and heart disease until they started eating a "modern" diet, which is mostly grain based (grains are plants)? Specifically, Inuit ate almost 100% meat and animal fat and had no disease of any kind (including no tooth decay) until they started to eat foreign food. (But yes, they did sometimes die young due to accidents and prey scarcity.) And I didn't read this in a book (although knowing history is part of it), I live with Inuit, I see the changes. I also know how my own body behaves depending on what I fuel it with.

Opinions, people, opinions.

I should not post here because I absolutely despise posts such as this. I know this is me being rude, as people will call it, but really. Where do people get off with the "discuss" bits on their posts. This is not a game show and if you are wanting to start arguments go elsewhere.

If you actually want opinions post like you want help and not just being Pat Sajak.

OK, let's answer the question. Yes, they both provide weight loss benefit, but neither is optimal for health, immediate, or long term success. To answer the question directly, here is how you should eat for optimal health, weight loss, and disease prevention.

I agree with you, I wouldn't necessarily recommend either.

As far as that chart you posted, I would disagree with some of that. For one, it would seem awfully low in protein for what the research indicates is the optimal range for lean mass retention on a diet. Also, while I agree that fruits, vegetables and other whole foods should make up the majority of one's diet, however, some context is needed. For example, an ultramarathon runner needs a massive amount of carbohydrates to support his training and events. If he were to attempt to meet his carbohydrate needs with fruits, veggies and whole grains, he wouldn't likely be able to stomach that volume of food and still compete, and the fiber intake would likely handcuff him to the toilet.

I must respectfully disagree. It is not low in protein, it is optimal in protein. The author himself was an Olympic figure skater, and advises professional and olympic athletes regarding their diet Naturally, as an athletic person's activity level increases, they will need to eat more food, and their protein level increases as their caloric needs increase. Plenty of marathon runners are following this plan as well.

It's a myth that a vegan or near vegan diet is low in protein. I've been hitting my protein requirements every day without any extra effort, not to mention exceeding all of my micronutrient requirements.

If you're talking about the RDA in protein of .8g/kg of bodyweight, then research has clearly shown superior lean mass retention while in a caloric deficit with a protein intake that is double that.

There is also a high correlation between animal product intake with cancer and heart disease, which is also clearly researched. (This is coming from an avid hunter and former high meat consumption kind of guy.)

I have no problem with your opinions, unless you say something questionable and try to pass it off as fact. Using the words "high correlation" and "clearly researched" is an attempt to make your opinions truth, while discrediting others.

I'm sorry, but the correlation between animal products and cancer and heart disease is NOT fact. The quality of animal products is a major factor though. Some of the studies that you are probably alluding to are based on people eating a modern diet full of processed meats, bad fats, and other non meat processed junk. There are far too many factors that cannot be isolated in most nutrition research, so while the information may be useful, it cannot be "fact" or even necessarily good for everyone.

How do you explain so many aboriginal people not having cancer and heart disease until they started eating a "modern" diet, which is mostly grain based (grains are plants)? Specifically, Inuit ate almost 100% meat and animal fat and had no disease of any kind (including no tooth decay) until they started to eat foreign food. (But yes, they did sometimes die young due to accidents and prey scarcity.) And I didn't read this in a book (although knowing history is part of it), I live with Inuit, I see the changes. I also know how my own body behaves depending on what I fuel it with.

Opinions, people, opinions.

No, it is based on the China Study, which had a population which did not consume those things to which you are referring. Also, there has been test research and practical clinical practices using this diet to reverse heart and other chronc diseases on regular basis.

Your insinuation that plants cause cancer and heart disease is absolutely unfounded and totally opinion. In fact, heart disease is regularly completely reversed by following a whole foods plant based diet. And the Inuit have highest incidence of osteoperosis in the world due to the calcium being leached from their bones from their high protein intake.

Modern processed plant foods do not qualify as plant foods, and certainly should be avoided. The skyrocketing rates of obesity and heart disease are testament to that.

The China study has been challenged by many respectable researchers. Chinese are now suffering the same diseases as everyone else while still eating a diet based on rice and soy. There is lots of research that support my views as well. Like I said, nutritional research has challenges because all factors cannot be isolated.

Where did I insinuate that plants cause cancer and heart disease??? Like you, I have issue with modern processed grains.

This is what I am talking about with your posts, you are trying to discredit other views just to prove yours "right". I eat a lot of fresh veggies; I think they are absolutely necessary for my good health. However, the reality is that some people have been healthy on a meat-based diet, but they did eat plants when they could (sea weeds, berries, stomach contents). I also think healthy meat products go hand in hand with healthy plant foods. You don't have to agree, but it works for ME and lots of other people.

Neither, real food makes you feel full and adds to the richness off the food requiring less for satisfaction. Low carb is highly unnecssary unless it's for medical reasons, but a person without medical restrictions shouldn't have an issue with carbs. This include people with protein specific allergies like gluten, as long as they stay away from gluten or whatever it is that they are allergic to and makes them inflammed and inefficient.

I have no problem with your opinions, unless you say something questionable and try to pass it off as fact. Using the words "high correlation" and "clearly researched" is an attempt to make your opinions truth, while discrediting others.

I'm sorry, but the correlation between animal products and cancer and heart disease is NOT fact. The quality of animal products is a major factor though. Some of the studies that you are probably alluding to are based on people eating a modern diet full of processed meats, bad fats, and other non meat processed junk. There are far too many factors that cannot be isolated in most nutrition research, so while the information may be useful, it cannot be "fact" or even necessarily good for everyone.

How do you explain so many aboriginal people not having cancer and heart disease until they started eating a "modern" diet, which is mostly grain based (grains are plants)? Specifically, Inuit ate almost 100% meat and animal fat and had no disease of any kind (including no tooth decay) until they started to eat foreign food. (But yes, they did sometimes die young due to accidents and prey scarcity.) And I didn't read this in a book (although knowing history is part of it), I live with Inuit, I see the changes. I also know how my own body behaves depending on what I fuel it with.

Opinions, people, opinions.

So you didn't read anything in a book but living with Inuit and how your own body reacts to food makes your statement fact and not opinion? My girlfriend is Canadian, I'm an expert on the French.

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. Since there are only six essential nutrients (water, minerals, vitamins, carbohydrates, fats, and proteins), the term 'nutrient dense' refers to how many of the six are in a certain food. For example, potato chips contain carbohydrates (in the form of starch), fats (absorbed during the frying process), and salt. If I am considering low fat vs. low carb, I have to look not only at what I don't get (fat or carb), but what I do get. A lot of prepackaged 'low fat' foods are higher in sugar (a carb); conversely, low carb foods may be higher in fat. Of the three nutrients used in calculating caloric intake (protein, carbohydrate, and fat), protein and carbohydrate contain about 4 kcal of energy per gram, while fat contains about 9 kcal of energy per gram. On the surface, I can consume 2 g of carb for each 1 g of fat; but considering carbohydrates are stored as fat, there's a little bit of a deception. On the other hand, high fiber foods have carbohydrates in a form that aren't easily digested and tend to be 'nutrient dense.' So getting your carbs in 'nutrient dense' foods has a payoff. Similarly, fats in the form of meat fat (i.e. 'marbling') may improve the flavor, but adds calories rapidly. If fats come from 'nutrient dense' sources, such as red fish (salmon, mackerel, sardines), the form (omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids) offset some of the caloric considerations.