Fat Head is an awesome documentary.

ooh i will check that out!

So is "My Life on the D List."

I liked Fat Head. He's funny.

There is a great deal of science supporting low carb high fat.
Fat in the diet doesn't raise bad cholesterol. Carbs do.
It is not "carbphobic" to accept science. It is not unreasonable for me to avoid high starch foods in favor of high fat low carb foods. The proof is in my own blood tests.
Lard is good.
The so-called "balanced" diet is not healthy for a huge segment of the population.

In most studies that look at it long term, there is little difference between low carb/ high fat and more traditionally balanced macros over the long term in terms of losing weight and keeping it off and for associated health markers. Low carb/ high fat is one of many strategies. It is not the universal one. If it works for you great but it is not a one size fits all. For some it is the best strategy for other not so much.

I thought Super High Me was better than both mentioned.

No. My target protein is less than 30%. I try to eat more fat calories. Still working out the balance. Need more cheese and whole milk. Less lean meat and fish. But I love seared tuna with wasabi.
High protein low fat is toxic.
I'm never weak or sluggish during exercise.

Protein helps keep your lean muscle mass. How is it toxic?

I think the documentary raises an interesting question that no one ever really addresses: Do insulin spikes matter in a calorie deficit?

As you can see from this thread, there are those who think that if calories and protein are held constant, insulin spikes are inconsequential. On the other hand, low carb advocates believe that they have a significant impact on body composition, by preventing the body from accessing fat stores.

It seems to me to depend on whether insulin spikes can outlast calories. Assume, for instance, that a person wakes up and has a large glass of concentrated grape juice and a giant bagel -- not a completely outlandish hypothetical. Is it likely that this person's insulin will remain elevated longer than the calories from that food will be available for energy? If so, during this gap in time, is access to fat stores completely cut off? If it is, low carb advocates would seem to have an argument. If not, it's quite a bit about nothing.

I think the documentary raises an interesting question that no one ever really addresses: Do insulin spikes matter in a calorie deficit?

As you can see from this thread, there are those who think that if calories and protein are held constant, insulin spikes are inconsequential. On the other hand, low carb advocates believe that they have a significant impact on body composition, by preventing the body from accessing fat stores.

It seems to me to depend on whether insulin spikes can outlast calories. Assume, for instance, that a person wakes up and has a large glass of concentrated grape juice and a giant bagel -- not a completely outlandish hypothetical. Is it likely that this person's insulin will remain elevated longer than the calories from that food will be available for energy? If so, during this gap in time, is access to fat stores completely cut off? If it is, low carb advocates would seem to have an argument. If not, it's quite a bit about nothing.

There is nothing wrong with a low carb diet if that's what suits an individual but I think this is really short term thinking. Okay so what if my lunch has hardly any carbs at all? Very low insulin spike and you use the rest of the stores through the rest of the day. These minute details are almost (notice the almost here) irrelevent to the average dieter. If fat use exceeds storage, do most of the other details matter?

ETA: Maybe its obvious I just read this yesterday:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/fundamental-principles-versus-minor-details.html

I think the documentary raises an interesting question that no one ever really addresses: Do insulin spikes matter in a calorie deficit?

As you can see from this thread, there are those who think that if calories and protein are held constant, insulin spikes are inconsequential. On the other hand, low carb advocates believe that they have a significant impact on body composition, by preventing the body from accessing fat stores.

It seems to me to depend on whether insulin spikes can outlast calories. Assume, for instance, that a person wakes up and has a large glass of concentrated grape juice and a giant bagel -- not a completely outlandish hypothetical. Is it likely that this person's insulin will remain elevated longer than the calories from that food will be available for energy? If so, during this gap in time, is access to fat stores completely cut off? If it is, low carb advocates would seem to have an argument. If not, it's quite a bit about nothing.

There is nothing wrong with a low carb diet if that's what suits an individual but I think this is really short term thinking. Okay so what if my lunch has hardly any carbs at all? Very low insulin spike and you use the rest of the stores through the rest of the day. These minute details are almost (notice the almost here) irrelevent to the average dieter. If fat use exceeds storage, do most of the other details matter?

ETA: Maybe its obvious I just read this yesterday:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/fundamental-principles-versus-minor-details.html

The article makes a value judgment and arguably a good point. However, I don't make value judgments for others and it really doesn't advance the academic issue.

The article makes a value judgment and arguably a good point. However, I don't make value judgments for others and it really doesn't advance the academic issue.

If you wish to argue the very fine points of fat storage, oxidation, and glycogen depletion, I'm not that versed yet (yes I admit to not knowing everything). From what I've learned so far I think the small details don't matter so much in average people.

I'm not especially versed either; that's why I posed the questions. Small details, over time, can cumulate into something quite significant, however, especially for people who are interested in optimal body composition, which is about 95% of those on MFP.

The article makes a value judgment and arguably a good point. However, I don't make value judgments for others and it really doesn't advance the academic issue.

If you wish to argue the very fine points of fat storage, oxidation, and glycogen depletion, I'm not that versed yet (yes I admit to not knowing everything). From what I've learned so far I think the small details don't matter so much in average people.

I'm not especially versed either; that's why I posed the questions. Small details, over time, can cumulate into something quite significant, however, especially for people who are interested in optimal body composition, which is about 95% of those on MFP.

I think that depends. There are a lot of people here working on "optimal" body composition, which I read as less then 20% body fat. There are others who are in the obese stage just trying to get to the "just overweight" stage and I think there are different goals for each.

I watched the trailer for this just now. I will have to watch it. While I don't think I am going to agree with the totality of what he has to say, I do believe that the government should not regulate what people can buy themselves. First, we can't win the war on drugs so we are going to try to rage a war on fast food and obesity? Waste of time and money. Unhealthy people will choose to be unhealthy even if it means eating 7 pieces of chicken at lunch instead of one.

I do believe that we need more truth in labeling and access to nutrition and ingredient information from the restaurants. Let people who WANT to eat healthy be able to make informed decisions.

I ate low carb for about five years straight and I wish I never did! It would take two weeks to get to a point I didn't feel exhausted all the time then if I ate carbs it would start the whole cycle over again to get my body burning fat again. I wish I was never exposed to that line of thinking. It took me years to come to the understanding of just how bad I felt and the need my body had for carbs. I also had a major personal discovery of the glycemic index and how important slow burning carbs are for hunger control. Now I simply watch my calories, balance my carbs, proteins, and fats as recommended and avoid quick burning carbs in excess. I have no problems at all staying within my calorie goals and I feel good. I never want to go around like a zombie again with out carbs. I am on my wife's user name so this is written by a man, if you care.

Although I am not a VLC follower myself (although I do tend to be <150g carb daily), from what I know of it, I'd say you were doing it wrong. (Alternatively, perhaps it just wasn't a good fit for you.)