Low Calories, or Low Carbs? What is better.....

OK, enough with the low carb is great, high carb is evil/high carb is great, low carb is evil debate. It's irrelevant, and everybody on either side is for the most part arguing about stuff that isn't real. The "Western Diet" isn't killing people. If it was, Western Civilization would've died out hundreds of years ago. People are on more medications now, because there are now medications for them. 100 years ago, they weren't on these medications, because they didn't exist, and those people just died. Also, most people that are getting sick with metabolic disorders tend to be older. Again, this wasn't a big deal in the past because the average person didn't live long enough to get there.

There is no hard, scientific, long term study that shows that any one diet is superior to any other diet.

The bottom line, people aren't as active as they once were, and are eating more total food than ever, and that's the entire reason for the obesity epidemic. Those are the real facts. So can we finish this silly, pointless argument, now?

I completely agree. I know low carb can be healthy for most people, and some people can't be healthy without it. But it's not necessary or even ideal for all.

BTW, I didn't write all that odd stuff about medical school and working in the medical field. I kind of jumped into the conversation.

I guess my point is that I don't think whole grains are necessary or ideal for anybody really either. And there really isn't evidence to support the necessity of it.

Necessity? Perhaps not. But there is evidence of health benefits. I eat to keep myself as healthy as possible, not just to stay alive. There is evidence that whole grains will assist in keeping me healthy. Plus, I enjoy eating them. Life, for me, is not all about necessity.

There is also evidence of health benefits by not eating them. It can swing both ways.

I have never seen a study showing health benefits achieved by a healthy person cutting out whole grains. Can you provide the study name or a link (please don't send a link to a blog).

Can you provide evidence that a person who is healthy both before and after the study showed health benefits by adding whole grains?

A study suggsting that a healthy person got healthier by eating whole grains? Perhaps not, as it would be pretty impossible to become more disease free if you were already disease free. But there are studies suggesting whole grains help you remain disease free.

In the Harvard-based Nurses' Health Study, women who ate 2 to 3 servings of whole-grain products (mostly bread and breakfast cereals) each day were 30 percent less likely to have a heart attack or die from heart disease over a 10-year period than women who ate less than 1 serving per week.
(Liu S, Stampfer MJ, Hu FB, et al. Whole-grain consumption and risk of coronary heart disease: results from the Nurses' Health Study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1999; 70:412-9.)

A meta-analysis of seven major studies showed that cardiovascular disease (heart attack, stroke, or the need for a procedure to bypass or open a clogged artery) was 21 percent less likely in people who ate 2.5 or more servings of whole-grain foods a day compared with those who ate less than 2 servings a week.
(Mellen PB, Walsh TF, Herrington DM. Whole grain intake and cardiovascular disease: A meta-analysis. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2007)

In a study of more than 160,000 women whose health and dietary habits were followed for up to 18 years, those who averaged 2 to 3 servings of whole grains a day were 30 percent less likely to have developed type 2 diabetes than those who rarely ate whole grains. (de Munter JS, Hu FB, Spiegelman D, Franz M, van Dam RM. Whole grain, bran, and germ intake and risk of type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study and systematic review. PLoS Med. 2007; 4:e261.) When the researchers combined these results with those of several other large studies, they found that eating an extra 2 servings of whole grains a day decreased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 21 percent.

An intriguing report from the Iowa Women's Health Study linked whole-grain consumption with fewer deaths from noncardiac, noncancer causes. Compared with women who rarely or never ate whole-grain foods, those who had at least two or more servings a day were 30 percent less likely to have died from an inflammation-related condition over a 17-year period.
(Jacobs DR, Jr., Andersen LF, Blomhoff R. Whole-grain consumption is associated with a reduced risk of noncardiovascular, noncancer death attributed to inflammatory diseases in the Iowa Women's Health Study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2007; 85:1606-14.)

I'm really averse to low carb diets for several reasons. First and foremost is your body's need for energy. Without going into a huge bio lesson on ATP in your cells, I'm just going to point out that simple sugars, like carbs, are easy for your body to break down into their chemical components and can be quickly converted into energy for the functions of your body. Other nutrients can be broken down for this, too, but the process takes much longer, and wouldn't you rather have the protein you consume go toward building healthy muscle instead of being used as fuel? My second problem with low-carb dieting, is that it is impossible to maintain long term, and many people who participate in low-carb eating habits gain a lot of weight back once they add carbohydrates back into their diets.

source: my soon-to-be bio degree.

I certainly wouldn't be able to say what schools, but it sure seems like that is the stance that is taken by doctors (at least everyone that I have met so far), nurses, certain other groups like the American Heart Association, the media, just about everybody (though it is slowly turning around) preaches a low fat diet as the secret to weightloss, health and longevity.

The last time I had a nurse who had to be at least 350lbs tell me that I had to lay off low carb and fats or I'd get sick and fat, and potentially die I stopped listening to anything that most doctors that cling to conventional wisdom say.

So, what did the other people eat? Seriously. That was the first thing that popped in my head.

If the other people were eating either no bread, then you may have a point.

If the other people were eating non-whole grain breads like white bread, you have only succeeded in showing that whole-grain is healthier than non-whole grains.

There were hundreds of thousands of participants in the studies. In at least some of the studies they were not told what to eat. I'm sure some ate white bread, some ate high sugar, some ate low fat, some at high fat, and some ate low carb. But, overall, the ones that ate more whole grains were healthier. Take from that what you will. To me it indicates whole grains are good for me. Plus the fact that I switched to whole grains more than 20 years ago and have made it to age 50 with no meds and no diseases.

**I also listened to other medical recommendations like eating less saturated fat and more nonsaturated fats, eating a variety of vegetables, not overeating and getting regular exercise (most of the time). I'm not suggesting that whole grains are a miracle food.

Maybe. I think there are a lot of ways to extrapolate data and that researchers are human and will often look for information that supports their preconceived notions and ignore other data that doesn't.

No matter as I'm more concerned with what works for me and all my lab tests like HDL, LDL, etc., have improved since lowering my carb intake. So, as I've said numerous times, I know it works for me. YMMV.