Everyday Systems

What is starch, anyway? I’m amazed at how many people who claim to be avoiding it don’t even know. It’s one of three kinds of dietary carbohydrates—the others are sugar and fiber. Starch is not some Fran- kenstein ingredient out of a pharmaceutical lab but is found abundantly in natural foods such as grains, roots, tubers, fruits, and seeds. It’s so abundant in our food supply that, since the dawn of agriculture at least, it has been the chief source of our caloric intake.8

Yes, that’s right, historically, most of the calories people have consumed since they learned to grow plants were from carbohydrates, and from starch spe- cifically. And, historically, most people were thin. With- out starch, they would have been dead. It seems odd to target a substance that kept our ancestors alive and thin for thousands of years as the culprit for the recent obesity epidemic. With the unprecedented amounts of meat and fat that we in our rich society today can enjoy, we’re already eating low-carb, as a percentage of total calories, compared to our poorer ancestors (and neigh- bors). So why do something totally historically unprec- edented, when we have thousands of years of evidence, from billions of people, that eating a much higher per- centage of carbs (and starch) than we currently do will not, in itself, make us fat?

What people historically did not eat a lot of is sugar. That is the really striking substantive difference between our diet and that of our skinny ancestors. Yes, they man- aged to find some sugar (or, more likely, honey), and prized it highly. But it was rare, expensive, a festive treat; precisely what the No S Diet aims to make it again.

If the past will not persuade you, consider the future.

If more and more people really were to start eating low-carb, and get more and more of their calories from animal protein, the environmental consequences would be devastating. According to a United Nations report quoted in the New York Times, already “global livestock grazing and feed production use ‘30 percent of the land surface of the planet,’†and “livestock are responsible for about 18 percent of the global warming effectâ€â€”more than cars, airplanes, and all forms of transportation combined. Worried about everyone in currently skinny, high-carb India and China getting cars like us and what that will do to the environment? Worry, too, about them going Atkins, even just halfway.

The truth is, we fat Westerners already eat a low- carb diet. Compared to people in other parts of the world and to our own ancestors, we get a much higher percentage or our calories from fat and protein than from carbohydrates. Ever heard that old saw about “all the rice in China� Well, that’s what they eat, mostly. It’s their chief source of calories. And it’s white rice. No one in Asia, except perhaps a few Western expats, eats brown rice. Ditto in India. Not especially fat countries. And that’s about half the world’s population right there. The simple fact is that people in most parts of the word can’t afford to eat as much meat and fat as we do today; and until recently, we couldn’t afford it either.

Reinhard wrote:Compared to people in other parts of the world and to our own ancestors, we get a much higher percentage or our calories from fat and protein than from carbohydrates. Ever heard that old saw about “all the rice in China� Well, that’s what they eat, mostly. It’s their chief source of calories. And it’s white rice. No one in Asia, except perhaps a few Western expats, eats brown rice. Ditto in India. Not especially fat countries. And that’s about half the world’s population right there. The simple fact is that people in most parts of the word can’t afford to eat as much meat and fat as we do today; and until recently, we couldn’t afford it either.

reinhard wrote: No-s is, in a way, a lower-carb diet.
Sweets are carbs.
They're just easier to identify and more indisputably bad for you than other carbs.
They're the "low hanging fruit" of carbs.

So while I am not persuaded that the "carbness" of sweets
makes them worse than any other calories (to my mind,
it's all about the bigger picture behaviors they're associated with)
you're hedging your bets a little with no-s:
if they are in fact worse you are in fact eating less of them.

If you feel the need to add additional carb based restrictions to no-s,
you certainly can, it's an easy framework to hang additional rules onto.

...the No S Diet...is accommodating and unobtrustive enough
that you could combine it with another diet if you want to hedge your weight-loss bets,
want to take a systematic approach to specific nutritional issues...
People on No S...have reported combining it
with various types of low-carb plans,
the Shangri-La Diet, vegetarianism, and more.

gettheweightoff wrote:I think it is absolutely true what Reinhard said
about adding more rules in that it might make it harder.

Maybe if the weight doesn't come off after a few months I should consider it
but for now it's more important to get vanilla no-s under my belt.

gettheweightoff wrote: I'm just going to plan to eat clean and see what happens. Right now I have to concentrate on getting sugar out of my diet and get the cravings under control.

BTW, I bought the book on Kindle & I dont think I have the same page numbers. Any way to figure that out? I only have a digital copy.

reinhard wrote:Fascinating as these questions are,
I think I may dodge these issues and stick with moderation (and my meat share).