What is with the low carb fad?

Enjoying an epic lunch right now of wild caught shrimp, pastured pork jowl, scrambled eggs, brussel sprouts, kerrygold butter, and avocado oil. I could eat this kind of food forever

guanciale or a different form of pork jowl?

A few reasons....

This article got me curious, so I started reading books, and it started to make a whole lot of sense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?scp=1&sq=what if its all been a big fat lie?&st=cse

Also, someone mentioned it helps keep the binge at bay - that is also true.

I low carb, but not in the Atkins way. I don't count, I just knocked out all the processed carbs, except for treats. I eat fruits and veggies until my heart is content, because no one will ever be able to convince me that fruit is bad, regardless of how many carbs it has. I still eat potatoes and squash, because I love them and they have lots of nutrients. I eat a moderate amount of steel cut oats as oatmeal, and I will occasionally eat grains, like barley and brown rice, but I keep the grains to once or twice a week at most.

But gone is anything made primarily from flour and/or processed - pasta, bread, crackers, cereals, white rice, and the like. I pretty much did away with anything that has a wrapper, except for frozen meat and veggies (with no additives).

Oh an early example of Taubes' garbage and counter point

http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake/singlepage

I said that article got me curious and researching. I've tried low fat my whole life and it never seems to last and its a constant hunger and craving battle. So, since I wanted to see if there was some merit to what he was saying, this time around, I also read Paleo, Protein Power, Atkins, Dukan, and South Beach to get their viewpoints. Most of them all agree, with the exception of fruit, which seems to be a varying issue.

I took from them what made the most sense to me, which is what I listed above. Sticking with mostly fruits and vegetables as my carb source got rid of my 2pm slump, my afternoon nap, my constant exhaustion, and now I have the energy to exercise, whereas I never did on low fat. I don't crave junk anymore. For me, personal results reign supreme. If I felt this good eating nothing but Cap'n Crunch, I'd be carbing it up right now. But, sadly, I don't.

But it seems you went to all like minded sources to confirm your beliefs or interest in low carb instead of actually looking at the entire body of work on it. If you did so, you'd find that Eades, Taubes etc simply make stuff up or cherry pick things to make it seem like something is true but in reality the body of evidence points elsewhere

Even though I disagree with you philosophically on diet and nutrition, your points are usually valid about as well as I can judge and I don't know why you even bother arguing science with people you know are not at anywhere near your level.

But anyways I'm trying to not make the same mistake as other posters here. I actually spend a great deal of time looking at Stephan Guyenet, James Krieger, Lyle McDonald and other anti-insulin hypothesis researchers and I haven't yet given it up on the idea. I especially like to see others point out the flaws in their own articles (particularly Guyenet because he pisses off quite a few with his ideas). Anyways just curious what do you think of Guyenet and his Food Reward hypothesis?

I know you do and I respect you for that, even taking your little beating on lyle's forums. As for Guyenet's hypothesis I'm not totally sold on that either, some parts of it make sense and has some backing, but I think he runs into some issues talking about reward and/or hedonic circuits and it's impact on things.

A few reasons....

This article got me curious, so I started reading books, and it started to make a whole lot of sense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?scp=1&sq=what if its all been a big fat lie?&st=cse

Also, someone mentioned it helps keep the binge at bay - that is also true.

I low carb, but not in the Atkins way. I don't count, I just knocked out all the processed carbs, except for treats. I eat fruits and veggies until my heart is content, because no one will ever be able to convince me that fruit is bad, regardless of how many carbs it has. I still eat potatoes and squash, because I love them and they have lots of nutrients. I eat a moderate amount of steel cut oats as oatmeal, and I will occasionally eat grains, like barley and brown rice, but I keep the grains to once or twice a week at most.

But gone is anything made primarily from flour and/or processed - pasta, bread, crackers, cereals, white rice, and the like. I pretty much did away with anything that has a wrapper, except for frozen meat and veggies (with no additives).

Oh an early example of Taubes' garbage and counter point

http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake/singlepage

I said that article got me curious and researching. I've tried low fat my whole life and it never seems to last and its a constant hunger and craving battle. So, since I wanted to see if there was some merit to what he was saying, this time around, I also read Paleo, Protein Power, Atkins, Dukan, and South Beach to get their viewpoints. Most of them all agree, with the exception of fruit, which seems to be a varying issue.

I took from them what made the most sense to me, which is what I listed above. Sticking with mostly fruits and vegetables as my carb source got rid of my 2pm slump, my afternoon nap, my constant exhaustion, and now I have the energy to exercise, whereas I never did on low fat. I don't crave junk anymore. For me, personal results reign supreme. If I felt this good eating nothing but Cap'n Crunch, I'd be carbing it up right now. But, sadly, I don't.

But it seems you went to all like minded sources to confirm your beliefs or interest in low carb instead of actually looking at the entire body of work on it. If you did so, you'd find that Eades, Taubes etc simply make stuff up or cherry pick things to make it seem like something is true but in reality the body of evidence points elsewhere

Even though I disagree with you philosophically on diet and nutrition, your points are usually valid about as well as I can judge and I don't know why you even bother arguing science with people you know are not at anywhere near your level.

But anyways I'm trying to not make the same mistake as other posters here. I actually spend a great deal of time looking at Stephan Guyenet, James Krieger, Lyle McDonald and other anti-insulin hypothesis researchers and I haven't yet given it up on the idea. I especially like to see others point out the flaws in their own articles (particularly Guyenet because he pisses off quite a few with his ideas). Anyways just curious what do you think of Guyenet and his Food Reward hypothesis?

I know you do and I respect you for that, even taking your little beating on lyle's forums. As for Guyenet's hypothesis I'm not totally sold on that either, some parts of it make sense and has some backing, but I think he runs into some issues talking about reward and/or hedonic circuits and it's impact on things.

Well I will say I think the people on lyle's forums are morons. Because I have defended the insulin hypothesis, I have a bull's eye on me every time I post anything on there. I feel like most of those guys use baseless arguments and straw men against me when I try to engage them in any debate. I'm convinced most of them don't know science like you do. They basically think I'm like a Taubes' clone and believe everything he believes even though I never said that and certainly don't. I don't understand lyle's responses, he comes across like a moron himself even though I know he is one intelligent guy. Heck the last time I chimed in, I was accused of believing a caloric deficit is not required for weight loss, even though I clarified like 3 times that it is required. I still believe in the insulin hypothesis as a primary cause for obesity (not sole cause), but from reading from some other bloggers out there who also support it, I think Taubes' version is off and doesn't tell the whole story.

Well to most there and other like minded communities anybody talking about the merits of Taubes' work will be looked at as someone who hasn't done a ton of research. Lyle can be an *kitten* and on certain subjects he'll go off the rails a bit but he generally is pretty spot on.

Yeah I don't know why its acceptable to be ignorant over there though. Almost any blogger who has an MD or PhD and supports the insulin hypothesis (and there are plenty) thinks that Taubes' version is off. They said he got the basic premise right, but missed a few things or got a few things wrong. I think its okay to shoot down the hypothesis with contradictory evidence (like you do), but these guys over there are just terrible. I know the evidence isn't sufficient at this point to defeat you, but these guys can't even comprehend what I'm trying to argue in the first place.

Lyle uses the term 'religious zealots' to describe anyone believing any form of the insulin hypothesis. Yet he completely contradicts that stance with articles talking about low-carbbing and insulin playing a role in some people. It either plays a role or it doesn't. He uses the same straw man that other use, that we all think black or white when we don't.

I admit, I'm the same way, I see someone mention Taubes', Fathead, Eades etc and make a determination that the person hasn't done research.

As far as Lyle and the religious zealots comment, it is a vibe i get from the hardcore defenders of low carb, Taubes, Paleo etc. And i don't think he contradicts himself, since he does say cabs and insulin play a role, but unlike Taubes' it is no the sole reason for weight gain or loss. Taubes' also applies his hypothesis to everyone, not a certain subset of the population that may have some sensitivities to carbs

Yeah I don't know why its acceptable to be ignorant over there though. Almost any blogger who has an MD or PhD and supports the insulin hypothesis (and there are plenty) thinks that Taubes' version is off. They said he got the basic premise right, but missed a few things or got a few things wrong. I think its okay to shoot down the hypothesis with contradictory evidence (like you do), but these guys over there are just terrible. I know the evidence isn't sufficient at this point to defeat you, but these guys can't even comprehend what I'm trying to argue in the first place.

Lyle uses the term 'religious zealots' to describe anyone believing any form of the insulin hypothesis. Yet he completely contradicts that stance with articles talking about low-carbbing and insulin playing a role in some people. It either plays a role or it doesn't. He uses the same straw man that other use, that we all think black or white when we don't.

I admit, I'm the same way, I see someone mention Taubes', Fathead, Eades etc and make a determination that the person hasn't done research.

As far as Lyle and the religious zealots comment, it is a vibe i get from the hardcore defenders of low carb, Taubes, Paleo etc. And i don't think he contradicts himself, since he does say cabs and insulin play a role, but unlike Taubes' it is no the sole reason for weight gain or loss. Taubes' also applies his hypothesis to everyone, not a certain subset of the population that may have some sensitivities to carbs

I guess the size of the population that is affected by insulin is still up for debate, but Lyle and his cronies never even gave me a chance to clarify my position before the attacks started. Its not like I jumped in and cited Taubes as evidence of something, I went in and defended a Taubes bashing thread. From that point on I'm attacked with straw men every time I weigh in on some topic relating to dieting.

I agree if someone cites Taubes or Eades, then I wouldn't trust them. I don't cite them myself as evidence of anything. I use their ideas as a starting point for how to do my own research.

I know, I've lurked int eh thread and witnessed it. Have you been to Monkey Island yet?

While simply partially defending some of Taubes' points shouldn't discount your opinion, depending on where you are it will severely discount them. This is most likely due to the fact that people who defend Taubes and the such also tend to beleive in other low carb fantasies such as metabolic advantage, fat adaptation and the like.

Yeah I don't know why its acceptable to be ignorant over there though. Almost any blogger who has an MD or PhD and supports the insulin hypothesis (and there are plenty) thinks that Taubes' version is off. They said he got the basic premise right, but missed a few things or got a few things wrong. I think its okay to shoot down the hypothesis with contradictory evidence (like you do), but these guys over there are just terrible. I know the evidence isn't sufficient at this point to defeat you, but these guys can't even comprehend what I'm trying to argue in the first place.

Lyle uses the term 'religious zealots' to describe anyone believing any form of the insulin hypothesis. Yet he completely contradicts that stance with articles talking about low-carbbing and insulin playing a role in some people. It either plays a role or it doesn't. He uses the same straw man that other use, that we all think black or white when we don't.

I admit, I'm the same way, I see someone mention Taubes', Fathead, Eades etc and make a determination that the person hasn't done research.

As far as Lyle and the religious zealots comment, it is a vibe i get from the hardcore defenders of low carb, Taubes, Paleo etc. And i don't think he contradicts himself, since he does say cabs and insulin play a role, but unlike Taubes' it is no the sole reason for weight gain or loss. Taubes' also applies his hypothesis to everyone, not a certain subset of the population that may have some sensitivities to carbs

I guess the size of the population that is affected by insulin is still up for debate, but Lyle and his cronies never even gave me a chance to clarify my position before the attacks started. Its not like I jumped in and cited Taubes as evidence of something, I went in and defended a Taubes bashing thread. From that point on I'm attacked with straw men every time I weigh in on some topic relating to dieting.

I agree if someone cites Taubes or Eades, then I wouldn't trust them. I don't cite them myself as evidence of anything. I use their ideas as a starting point for how to do my own research.

I know, I've lurked int eh thread and witnessed it. Have you been to Monkey Island yet?

While simply partially defending some of Taubes' points shouldn't discount your opinion, depending on where you are it will severely discount them. This is most likely due to the fact that people who defend Taubes and the such also tend to beleive in other low carb fantasies such as metabolic advantage, fat adaptation and the like.

What is monkey island?

If they attacked my arguments and not based their responses off their preconceived notions about me, then there could have actually been interesting debate. It seems they simply don't want people on that forum who disagree with them. Period.

I still don't quite know what you mean about fat adaption. A while ago I posted a topic about low carb and running and people thought I was an idiot. All I wanted to know was how much protein would be used and was told I should eat like 400-500g of protein or something stupid. Turns out on normal protein intake, my endurance has improved immensely and most of the time I am doing speed training on low glycogen stores (8 miles in just over an hour of running) and doing pretty well. Haven't lost any muscle or strength in 3 months.

Assuming that is what you are talking about on fat adaptation, you should look at Peter Attia's blog. He does a lot of self-experimentation on this and I'm convinced we don't need carbs to perform well when it comes to endurance sports. n=2 (peter + me)

http://www.waroninsulin.com

Monkey island

http://monkeyisland.lylemcdonald.com/

I thought you said you timed carbs around your runs? And the question isn't whether you can perform decently in endurance sports on a low carb diet, but if you'd perform as well if not better then had you been on a moderate to high carb diet.

I always eat carbs after runs, and only sometimes eat them before. Usually I eat them before on the longest runs (10+ miles). I intentionally do refeeds because I don't want to down-regulate my ability to process them on race day, and also I like having cheat days every now and then.

I can't prove whether low-carbing per se has improved my running or whether its caused by losing 15 lbs or training at a higher weekly volume than previously. What I can say is that my fat oxidation HAS to have improved significantly otherwise I would have burned out all my muscles and/or hit the wall on my runs. But it never happens and I seldom feel bad on a run, unless maybe I didn't get enough sleep the night before.

i have no doubt you have become more efficient at using fat for fuel on long runs or that your times and endurance has improved while low carbing. What is unknown is whether you'd be further along in your training if you ate more carbs, since you've mentioned you're not overly sensitive, it's just that you eat a ton of them when you do since they don't satisfy you

It is something I'd consider even if I don't feel any of the symptoms in the first paragraph.

And even if I was to do it and feel awesome, it would make the scientific backing of the diet any more sound, it's just N=1. I don't think anyone is really arguing about the main idea of eating mostly whole, minimally processed foods. It's the whole limit or eliminate certain food food groups that is a point of contention.