What Does Food Have to do with being fat?

[BrightAngel]

I found this recent broadcast on obesity interesting and informative,
and am interested in the individual reactions of those who hear it through.
For faster access, click "Popup".

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/jan/04/wh ... being-fat/

[Marianne]

Thanks for the link. I'm reading "Why We Get Fat And What To Do About It" now and finding it fascinating. His point is overeating and little exercise is not the cause of obesity but the result of it.

Gary Taubs also says the primary way we get fat is too much insulin as a result of eating too many carbs.

I don't think I could go entirely without carbs (I could never follow the Atkins diet, for instance) but may try to cut down.

[Graham]

BrightAngel, the broadcast was very interesting, it reminded me of the first successful diet I used back in the late '60s - following a low-carb regime devised by John Yudkin. (sadly I was also smoking to suppress the desire to eat more than my diet recommended)

However, a low carb regime for the whole world seems to pose a problem: is a world-wide low carb diet possible with the current level of world population? If low-carb means eating lots more animal fat and protein wouldn't that be both costly and ecologically unsustainable? What is the affordable sustainable way to low carb? Any ideas?

Perhaps we could eat more algae?

Graham

[BrightAngel]

However, a low carb regime for the whole world seems to pose a problem:
is a world-wide low carb diet possible with the current level of world population?

I think Taubes' comment within his Introduction to
Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It is on point here.
Taubes says

In the more than six decades since the end of the Second World War,
when this question of
what causes us to fatten---calories or carbohyrdates--has been argued,
it has often seemed like a religious issue rather than a scientific one.
So many different belief systems enter into the question of what constitutes a healthy diet
that the scientific question--why do we get fat?--has gotten lost along the way.

It's been overshadowed by ethical, moral, and socological considerations
that are valid in themselves and certainly worth discussing
but have nothing to do with the science itself
and arguably no place in a scientific inquiry.

[Graham]

Yes, BA, what I'm saying doesn't change the science, or reject it - rather it poses the question "Given our current population, how would we implement this knowledge?"

It may be that it is perfectly possible, that there are ways to sidestep the Insulin issues whilst still using cereals, I was just wondering if you, or anyone else here, had any knowledge about how that would be done.

I guess I can do some searching of my own, just wondered if the work had already been done.

[BrightAngel]

Yes, BA, what I'm saying doesn't change the science, or reject it
rather it poses the question "Given our current population, how would we implement this knowledge?"

I don't believe an answer has been developed for your question,
and whether or not such a solution exists,
it is unlikely the world will arrive at it...
unless and until... the underlying science becomes widely accepted.

One of these principles that would need to be accepted is:
"the way the body handles carbs is what creates obesity
in those who have a genetic tendency to become obese."

[Graham]

"the way the body handles carbs is what creates obesity
in those who have a genetic tendency to become obese."

As a matter of interest, does that principle point towards a low-carb solution, or a low GI solution? I noted Taubes referring to unprocessed grains as less obesogenic during the broadcast, and wondered if he is now advising low-carb or low GI carbs - presumably either approach would prevent the surge in insulin production?

On a brighter note, I've discovered that there are a number of books on both low-carb vegetarian diets, and vegetarian low GI diets too. I'm assuming both would be somewhat more affordable and less ecologically problematic if adopted world-wide.

[BrightAngel]

As a matter of interest, does that principle point towards a low-carb solution, or a low GI solution?
I noted Taubes referring to unprocessed grains as less obesogenic during the broadcast,
and wondered if he is now advising low-carb or low GI carbs -
presumably either approach would prevent the surge in insulin production?

Taubes mentions the glycemic index in the book a few times.
A comment on point:

"Not that all foods that contain carbohydrates are equally fattening.
This is a crucial point. The most fattening foods
are the ones that have the greatest effect on our blood sugar and insuin levels.
These are the concentrated sources of carbohydrates,
and particularly those that we can digest quickly;

anything made of refined flour (bread, cereals, and pasta),
liquid carbohydrates (beers, fruit juices and sodas),
and starches (potatoes, rice, and corn).

These foods flood the bloodstream quickly with glucose.
Blood sugar shoots up; insulin shoots up. We get fatter.
Not surprisingly, these foods have been considered uniquely fattening
for nearly two hundred years (as I'll discuss later")

[wosnes]

BrightAngel -- I want to make sure I'm understanding what Taubes is saying. Is he saying that insulin sensitivity causes obesity?

[Sharpie]

I listened to the broadcast. I have not looked at the science- which, as he says, is the crux of the issue. I have trouble believing what he claims the science shows though. Does he go through it (the studies he referred to) in the book? Insulin resistance causing/potentiating obesity makes sense, but I cannot comprehend how eating one plate of spaghetti as part of my diet will cause obesity? I do agree with his comments on sugars and HFCS, maybe that's more the issue than so called low-GI carbs?

[Graham]

Not sure whether Taubes' book covers it (I plan to read it, but not sure when as I don't read much these days and have a pile of "must read this" books already) but we should remind ourselves, the diets of the past and in the third world today are in conjunction with a high level of obligatory activity.

Any anti-exercise/obesogenic effects of their diets would be overridden by necessity: no cars, so no walk = no water. This obligation to be active could flatter peasant diets - it would be wrong to assume their level of carb consumption is healthy without considering their massively higher level of activity when compared to us in the West.

[wosnes]

Not sure whether Taubes' book covers it (I plan to read it, but not sure when as I don't read much these days and have a pile of "must read this" books already) but we should remind ourselves, the diets of the past and in the third world today are in conjunction with a high level of obligatory activity.

Any anti-exercise/obesogenic effects of their diets would be overridden by necessity: no cars, so no walk = no water. This obligation to be active could flatter peasant diets - it would be wrong to assume their level of carb consumption is healthy without considering their massively higher level of activity when compared to us in the West.

Interesting observation, although our bodies still require exercise/movement for many reasons. Adapting to the point where we don't is still hundreds, if not more, years away.

[BrightAngel]

I have not looked at the science- which, as he says, is the crux of the issue.
I have trouble believing what he claims the science shows though.
Does he go through it (the studies he referred to) in the book?
Insulin resistance causing/potentiating obesity makes sense,
but I cannot comprehend how eating one plate of spaghetti as part of my diet will cause obesity?
I do agree with his comments on sugars and HFCS,
maybe that's more the issue than so called low-GI carbs?

The Science that Taubes presents is an interesting and different way to look at things.

His prior book Good Calories Bad Calories (2007) was written for the medical professional.
It is about 500 pages and dense with research and history details, and densly annotated,
which makes it VERY hard to read through.
I did read it....but much of it was above my level of knowledge about the body.

This new book covers the subject in a more "user friendly" way,
but still touches on the science behind the Theory.
I agree with this recent review from a reader of his recent book,
Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It

Taubes lays out his evidence, and his argument, with compelling precision.
You are not expected to take (nor should you take) anything he says on faith.
Very well written, and a very good balance of enough technical science to be informative,
but not so much that a reasonably attentive reader would get bogged down.

You can get a better feeling of the subject
by accessing some of the links that are on my personal thread, Bright Angel's Check-In
and by looking at a new Thread there called, Kathleen and BrightAngel's Discussion of Why We Get Fat,
which was created so she and I would have some way to talk with each other about the details of the book.

I think it's going to be a subject the "DietWorld" is going to be talking about this year.
No doubt this will include many half-truths and misquotes by those who refuse to consider new ideas.
It is featured on the cover of Feb's Reader's Digest,
as well as Prevention magazine, and there is a blurb on the cover of Vogue.
I think that People who are interested in expanding their mind with new concepts
would greatly increase their knowledge by reading it for themselves.

[BrightAngel]

BrightAngel -- I want to make sure I'm understanding what Taubes is saying.
Is he saying that insulin sensitivity causes obesity?

wosnes,
Here is a recent article in the Boston Globe which addresses your question.

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles ... e_get_fat/

[wosnes]

However, a low carb regime for the whole world seems to pose a problem: is a world-wide low carb diet possible with the current level of world population? If low-carb means eating lots more animal fat and protein wouldn't that be both costly and ecologically unsustainable? What is the affordable sustainable way to low carb? Any ideas?

I've read that the planet can't support its population eating a diet high in animal foods, nor can it support a population that eats a diet high in grains. Either extreme is unsustainable. In the case of animal foods, factory farming is the most efficient way of getting meat to a lot of tables, even though it produces a lower quality product with an inferior nutrient profile. I don't think there is an affordable way to eat a high protein, low carb diet.

BrightAngel --

I searched for Hilde Bruch and found this: "She found a few children with glandular disorders, but she discovered that in the great majority of cases obesity resulted not from an endocrine disorder but from overeating and inactivity."

1. One of the problems I have with low carbohydrate diets is that glucose is the primary source of energy for our bodies and our brain's only source of energy.

2. I'm a nurse and I was taught that excess weight combined with continued overeating and lack of exercise leads to insulin resistance and possibly eventually Type 2 diabetes. It makes sense -- Type 2 diabetes used to be called adult onset diabetes and was rarely seen in anyone younger than 50. As we age we often continue eating as we did when we were decades younger and we start to move less. Now we're seeing Type 2 diabetes in children who consume more calories than they need -- and move very little.

One of the interesting things I found when searching "insulin resistance" is that much of the information comes from one of two groups: those promoting a high carb/low fat diet and those promoting a high protein/low carb diet. Obviously, they have different views.

So what is insulin resistance? One of insulin’s primary jobs is to push fat into the fat cells – thus saving fat for the day when no food is available. The calories consumed in excess of our needs cause us to gain fat – this is a natural, expected change to prepare us for a possible future famine. Soon, a point is reached when this accumulation becomes counterproductive – a point when any further excess fat gain is likely to cause serious physical harm. When this hazardous excess is reached, the body puts “the brakes on†in order to slow the rate of weight gain. This is accomplished by a variety of changes that cause the hormone insulin to become less potent. In other words, our cells become resistant to the actions of the fat-gaining hormone, insulin – a state referred to as “insulin resistance.â€

Also from Dr. McDougall:

One of the greatest distortions of the truth promoted by high-protein diet advocates is that protein causes little or no increase in production of insulin. However, research shows just the opposite. When fed in equal amounts (calories), beef raises insulin more than whole grain pasta, cheese more than white pasta, and fish more than porridge (Am J Clin Nutr 66:1264, 1997).

This excerpt from a vignette from reversingdiabetes.org explains it this way:

Sugar is the fuel we run on

We all use carbohydrates (sugar) for energy to live. The potato as well as the candy bar are all converted into glucose (blood sugar) circulating in our blood stream. This sugar will be taken into the cells and "burned" to supply the energy to move a muscle or to think a thought or whatever it was that the cell is designed to do.

But to get into a cell sugar must pass through a special sugar door in the cell's wall. These doors are how a cell tells the body it is hungry. A hungry cell will have thousands of these sugar doors all over its surface.

But sugar by itself has no way to open these doors to get into the cell. Here is where insulin has its job. Imagine insulin as a little guy with two hands. With one hand he grabs the doorknob and opens one of these sugar doors and with the other hand he shoves a sugar through the door into the cell. That is what insulin does, it opens the sugar doors.

Where does insulin come from? It comes from special cells in the pancreas called beta cells. These beta cells constantly taste your blood to see just how sweet it is. And when they taste your sugar level rising after a meal they release more insulin into your blood. This insulin can then open more doors and put the extra sugar into the cells. And thus, the amount of sugar left in the blood is brought back down to normal. This is how your body normally controls its blood sugar level.
So what causes diabetes?

Imagine sitting on a couch following a heavy meal. All of the calories you just ate are being absorbed into your blood. As your blood sugar level rises insulin is released. And this insulin goes around from cell to cell trying to open doors to get all of this sugar out of your blood and into your cells. But your leg muscle cells are still full of sugar from lunch. So they say to the insulin, "We are full and we aren't going for any exercise tonight so we don't need anymore sugar. Maybe you could take some to the finger muscle. He will be busy working the TV clicker." But how much sugar can a finger muscle use? And so eventually all the muscle cells are stuffed and don't want anymore sugar.

But how does a cell tell the body that it doesn't want any more sugar? It removes the doors from its surface! Now we have a problem. Where will the insulin take all of its extra sugar? Some cells can store extra sugar in the form of glycogen or fat. But day after day of no exercise while continuing to eat a high calorie diet eventually overloads these cells also. Not only do you get fat but even the fat cells are feeling stretched to their limit and don't want anymore calories. And now the problem gets worse.

How does a fat cell tell you he is full and doesn't want anymore? He removes the doors from his surface too. Now you have a serious problem. Where will the insulin take all of that extra sugar that you are eating? The answer is it has nowhere to go. It just backs up in your blood and your sugar level gets higher and higher. You go to your doctor and he does some tests and then he tells you that now you have diabetes.
The Rx

Your doctor probably did something else for you that first visit. He got out his prescription pad and wrote you a prescription for some pills to lower your blood sugar. Pills like DiaBeta or Micronase. Do you know how these pills work? They go to the beta cells in your pancreas and say, "Make more insulin!"

So the beta cells, whipped on by the medications, start to put out more insulin. And all this extra insulin rushes around your body looking for a few last doors somewhere that they can force more sugar through.

But after a time even these last few doors are removed. And your sugar levels continue to rise in spite of increasing doses of medications. Finally one day your doctor says to you, "I guess you've become resistant to your medications so we are going to have to start you on insulin." In other words, we can't whip enough insulin out of your exhausted pancreas so we are just going to start injecting more insulin into you.

But day after day there are less and less doors for the ever-increasing amounts of insulin to find. And so with your diabetes still out of control you rush down the road towards blindness, amputations and death.
The road back

If you will think carefully about how this disease has progressed to this point you will begin to see what all the excitement is about. What is the real problem here? Is it a lack of insulin or is it a lack of these sugar doors? There are not enough doors! The cells have removed all the doors because they aren't hungry anymore.

So can you see that what we really need is not more insulin but more doors.

But your doctor can't prescribe a pill or injection of new doors for your cells. So how can we get more doors back on our cells. It is really quite simple. We have to make the cells hungry! A hungry cell will make thousands of doors all over its surface.

How do we make a cell hungry? Exercise! Walk, walk, walk, walk.

One of the things I've learned over the years is that exercise, even something as simple as walking, is equally, and some sources say more, important as diet in control of insulin resistance/Type 2 diabetes.

I think it's interesting that many sources imply that insulin becomes less effective, when others, like the one above, state that it isn't that the insulin is less effective, it's that the cell walls are more resistant to the actions of insulin. Which makes the term insulin resistance make sense.

3. The process by which carbs are turned to fat is called de novo lipogenesis.

This is from the September 2006 McDougall Newsletter:

The Human Body Does Not Turn Sugar to Fat

The process of synthesizing fat from sugar is known as de novo lipogenesis—the new production of fat. This activity is highly efficient in some animals, such as pigs and cows—which is one reason they have become popular people foods—these animals can convert low-energy, inexpensive carbohydrates—grass, say, in the case of cows and grains for pigs—into calorie-dense fats.5 However, human beings are very inefficient at this process and as a result de novo lipogenesis does not occur under usual living conditions in people. Thus the common belief that sugar turns to fat is scientifically incorrect—and there is no disagreement about this fact among scientists or their scientific research.

Under experimental laboratory conditions, however, where people are overfed large amounts of simple sugars, the human body will resort to converting a small amount of sugar into a small amount of fat (triglycerides) in the liver. For example, in one recent study, trim and obese women were overfed with 50% more calories than they usually ate—note, 535 of these extra calories each day came from four and a half ounces (135 grams) of refined sugar. In this forced-fed situation, the women produced less than 4 grams (36 calories) of fat daily from the extra carbohydrate.8 Extrapolation from these findings means a person would have to be overfed by this amount of food and table sugar every day for nearly 4 months in order to gain one extra pound of body fat from the conversion of sugar to fat—by de novo lipogenesis. Obviously, even overeating substantial quantities of sugar is a relatively unimportant source of body fat.

From ScienceBlog

Although rates of de novo lipogenesis in the carbohydrate-enriched energy-balanced control diet were significantly greater in the obese than in the lean women, the absolute quantities of fat synthesized from carbohydrate via de novo lipogenesis during both phases of the study were relatively small. An editorial by Hellerstein points out that de novo lipogenesis is a “path of last resort†in the body’s overall carbohydrate metabolism.

So while it's possible for calories from sugar to be turned into fat, it's highly improbable.

I tend to be wary of any extreme diet -- and I think anything that restricts entire food groups (meat, grains) is extreme. I find it hard to believe that there are whole classes of real foods we should never eat. I think it's those types of rigid, absolute beliefs in life, no matter how well intentioned, that get us in trouble. I do think that there are some people who will benefit from one or the other of the extremes, but not the majority.

[kccc]

Awesome post, Wosnes. Thank you.

[BrightAngel]

wones,
Your post does an excellent job of stating the "conventional wisdom" as it currently exists.

As most people know, Gary Taubes, in his previous book,
Good Calories Bad Calories (2007), and his new book,
Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It.(2011)
thoroughly addresses the History of Scientific Research on that "conventional wisdom",
as well as the problems in the underlying research
that led to general acceptance of those concepts.

That information sounds good, but perhaps it isn't really true.
Those physiological concepts have been commonly accepted...
almost without question... for the past 40+ years...
but I'm really surprised (as are a great many other people)
to see how little Scientific basis exists
for many of the beliefs that are "conventional wisdom".

Taubes offers an alternative hypothesis, another way to look at Obesity.
Maybe it's correct...maybe it's not,
but "conventional wisdom" used to be that the world was flat,
and that water was blue because the sky is blue.
We now know different
because of people who had their minds open to reasonable alternate possibilities.
Personally, I hold the hope that all of us here are such people.

I recommend that open-minded people read Taubes' new book,
and then if it raises further questions on specific research of issues,
then they sholuld follow up by reading his far more difficult previous book.

[wosnes]

That information sounds good, but perhaps it isn't really true.

This is exactly how I feel when I read what Taubes writes.

One thing that bothers me about this is that protein metabolism is hard on the kidneys, especially if one is at risk for diabetes or already diabetic. I've seen people follow high-protein diets and lose kidney function.

There's the issue of cost. We may pay a smaller percentage of our income on food than most other people in the world, and a smaller percentage than we did 50 years ago, but meat and vegetables are still expensive. I mentioned in a recent post that I'm having some financial struggles recently and the one thing I can't afford daily -- let alone more than once daily -- is meat. Vegetables are the second thing.

My diet is based on potatoes, sometimes sweet potatoes, white rice, pasta, homemade white bread, and beans with meat and vegetables added as I can. I do eat eggs nearly daily. Think Clara and Great Depression Cooking. While my appetite, that is, what I want to eat, might not be satisfied, my hunger certainly is. And I lose weight. My jeans are getting looser. My labs are great. I don't think I'm all that unusual, either.

In one of Clara's videos she mentions everyone being fat, eating all those potatoes. I have her cookbook and there are pictures of her and her family throughout the Depression and afterwards. They're anything but fat. They're quite slim, in fact. I have pictures of my own family from that time (my mom was born the same year as Clara) and they're also all slim.

One thing I've read from various sources is that when you restrict a food group, no matter what the food group is, essentially you're restricting calories.

There was a segment on The Potato Diet on the Today Show about a month ago. As the man who did the experiment says, it's not meant to be the next fad diet, but an experiment to show that potatoes are a nutritious food and part of a healthy diet. There's more information here This wasn't news to me.

From the April, 2002 McDougall Newsletter "Potatoes Are Pillars of Worldwide Nutrition."

One landmark experiment carried out in 1925 on two healthy adults, a man 25 years old and a woman 28 years old, had them live on a diet primarily of white potatoes for 6 months (A few additional items of little nutritional value except for empty calories -- pure fats, a few fruits, coffee, and tea -- were supplemented in their diet).7 The report stated, “They did not tire of the uniform potato diet and there was no craving for change.†Even though they were both physically active (especially the man) they were described as, “…in good health on a diet in which the nitrogen (protein) was practically solely derived from the potato.â€

This is from The World's Diet Secrets in Forbes magazine in 2009. The excerpt is from The Jungle Effect by Dr. Daphne Miller -- I've mentioned it several times before:

Among her many surprises: The Tarahumara Indians of Copper Canyon had impressively low blood sugar levels despite deriving 80% of their calories from carbohydrates. The difference, she says, is that the Tarahumara eat minimally processed corn and beans. Many of their staples, including spices and herbs, release sugar into the body slowly. While the Tarahumara have struggled with poverty-related malnutrition, Miller says that the slow-releasing carbohydrates help prevent an overproduction of insulin and aid in maintaining blood sugar levels.

[BrightAngel]

wones,
You are restating the "conventional wisdom".
Things that everyone...including medical professionals... think they know.
Things they don't even bother to question.

You might be eating exactly the way that best works for your body.
The fact that potatoes are good for you, and for many other people
is not at issue.

A different way of looking at
every one of the issues you have raised in this Thread
are contained inside Taubes' books:
Good Calories Bad Calories (2007)
and
Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It. (2011)

If you are truly interested in why and how
the issues you have raised are questionable,
read Taubes' new book, Why We Get Fat
After doing that, you might want to go back and read the longer, more difficult book.

[Starla]

There was a segment on The Potato Diet on the Today Show about a month ago. As the man who did the experiment says, it's not meant to be the next fad diet, but an experiment to show that potatoes are a nutritious food and part of a healthy diet. There's more information here This wasn't news to me.

I remember reading "The Great Hunger" about the Irish potato famine and learning that the diet of the Irish peasantry consisted of two things: potatoes and milk. The author stated that this was actually nutritionally superior to the diet of the English working class at the time, which surprised me, but it was, of course, the reason the potato blight was so catastrophic.

[yoozer]

[I'm a newbie/lurker here, so forgive me for butting in to this argument. But I am very interested in the arguments put forward by people such as Gary Taubes, and the whole question of obesity and weight loss in general.]

Taubes is quite convincing when questioning the consensus behind conventional nutritional advice. But the second part of his argument, the alternative hypothesis that high carbohydrate consumption has caused the obesity epidemic, is less persuasive to me. It may be correct, but as yet there is not a convincing weight of evidence to support it. And yet Taubes comes across as if he already believes it, and is just waiting for the studies to confirm his beliefs. Exactly like some of the scientists he castigates in the first part of his argument, in other words.

I think the truth is that nutritional science is just very hard to do. It's not like you can perform experiments on human bodies to test a hypothesis. You have to go on indirect evidence. Such evidence is difficult and time-consuming to collect reliably. So I think it's going to take a long time before we have complete answers to questions such as what causes obesity. It could be, for example, that there are multiple, unrelated causes. People around the developed world seem to be able to get fat, or conversely not get fat, on all kinds of diets.

[BrightAngel]

...forgive me for butting in to this argument.
But I am very interested in the arguments put forward by people such as Gary Taubes,
and the whole question of obesity and weight loss in general.

You are certainly NOT butting in.
This is a Thread in the General Discussion area,
and every No S fourm member is welcome to make a comment on any Thread here,
whenever they wish to do so.

Taubes is quite convincing when questioning the consensus behind conventional nutritional advice.
But the second part of his argument,
the alternative hypothesis that high carbohydrate consumption has caused the obesity epidemic,
is less persuasive to me.
It may be correct,
but as yet there is not a convincing weight of evidence to support it.

I totally agree with the above-quoted statement.

Taubes comes across as if he already believes it.

I also agree with this statement. However, I think it important to note,
Taubes didn't start out with his current beliefs,
but formed them after he spent more than 5 years doing extensive research
for his 2007 book, Good Calories Bad Calories.

Now, 4 years later, Taubes has written a shorter, refined version
specifically for the average, intelligent reader.

I think it would be amazing if, after ingesting and analyzing so much information,
a writer didn't form any personal opinion about the subject.

In Taubes' books he calls his idea an "alternative hypotheses" for why we get fat.
and he states that he thinks that his explaination of this idea is "almost assuredly" correct.
In Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It, Taubes says:

When I use the phrase "almost assuredly",
what I mean is that I believe this to be the case with such conviction
that I would stake my reputation on it.

But...I find I can't remove the "almost".
We can never say anything for certain in science until it has survived rigorous tests,
particularly when we're challenging accepted beliefs.

I think the truth is that nutritional science is just very hard to do.
...evidence is difficult and time-consuming to collect reliably.
So I think it's going to take a long time before we have complete answers.

I also agree with this quoted portion of your comment.

[BrightAngel]

One thing that bothers me about this is that protein metabolism is hard on the kidneys,
especially if one is at risk for diabetes or already diabetic.
I've seen people follow high-protein diets and lose kidney function.

You might want to check out a recent post on my Check-in Thread,
at http://everydaysystems.com/bb/viewtopic ... &start=450
about that issue. You can find the link to the following quote,
and more of the following article there.

Does a Low Carb Diet Cause Kidney Damage?

The belief that high protein diets cause kidney damage is one reason why, for many years,
doctors warned people with diabetes that low carb diets would kill their kidneys.

Fortunately, this turns out not to be true.
While almost any intake of protein is a problem for people with advanced kidney disease,
studies have found repeatedly that for people with normal kidney function
or early diabetic changes the low carb diet not only doesn't promote kidney damage,
it also reduces blood pressure, which is a major cause of kidney damage
and may actually reverse early kidney changes.

[Sharpie]

On the de novo lipogenisis (making new fat from sugar): While it may be true that the body does not turn sugar into fat well, what is also true is that the body preferentially uses sugar over fat as an energy source and some tissues (nervous system) can ONLY use glucose. So, if a person is getting enough sugar, pretty much all the fat in their diet will go straight to storage. The end- there's plenty of sugar, so no need for the liver to process fat to glucose for the brain and muscles (which the body is MUCH better at than the reverse!), so carbs could certainly promote fat storage.

Second, while it used to be thought that high protein diets were hard on the kidneys and would damage them, it has been found (in the past few years) that in people and dogs at least, that the protein level doesn't matter unless there is already pre-existing renal compromise. So BrightAngel is right on it there. And the problem with high protein with renal damage is not even that it makes the renal function worse at all, so much as the already damaged kidneys can't keep up with protein metabolism, so the levels of creatinine and BUN build up in the blood and cause other problems.

I'm still a calories in/calories out person though. I think there are exceptions since certain people definitely do have different metabolisms, but that it is still the most accurate explanation for most excess weight in the US at least.

[Graham]

Re the calories in/calories out thing - If you're under controlled conditions, where someone else regulates your calorific intake, that's one thing - out in the world, that is another matter. I think what Taubes is saying is that the low carb diet won't provoke excessive calorie consumption and will increase the appetite for activity, whereas a high-carb diet will do the opposite in susceptible people (which is probably the majority of us)

On the matter of brain food - I read that, in the absence of glucose, the brain burns ketone bodies, and can do so for weeks on end without impairment.

None of the foregoing should blind us to what works for us. I'm aware when I discuss such issues as glucose vs ketone bodies for the brain, I'm just regurgitating what I've read. In the real world, my body is at times bafflingly uncooperative with my efforts, seeming to mock common sense, shedding weight without good cause, or piling pounds on - indifferent (or hostile?) to my efforts to change it.

[BrightAngel]

None of the foregoing should blind us to what works for us.

I'm aware when I discuss such issues as glucose vs ketone bodies for the brain,
I'm just regurgitating what I've read.

In the real world,
my body is at times bafflingly uncooperative with my efforts,
seeming to mock common sense,
shedding weight without good cause, or piling pounds on
- indifferent (or hostile?) to my efforts to change it.

Graham, I agree with your above-quoted statements.

In our discussions, all of us state opinions that are based
on what we've already read, heard, or experienced.
As for me.....some of my present opinions might change
based on my future studies and experiences.

However, you appear to be describing MY body.

[wosnes]

On the matter of brain food - I read that, in the absence of glucose, the brain burns ketone bodies, and can do so for weeks on end without impairment.
.

This is true, but ketosis is an abnormal and unhealthy state. See this and this.

[Graham]

@ Wosnes: the two sources you cite on ketosis are at worst equivocal about it. For a more positive (and erudite) take on ketosis go here: http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot. ... tones.html

Burning ketones is only "abnormal" in those societies that consume lots of carbs and never experience food shortages. We are designed to be able to cope without food when necessary, we would have been a very disadvantaged species were this not so - what are our fat stores for if we can't use them when there's no food around?

[kccc]

Just a reminder to newbies that this is an "advanced" discussion. If you're starting out, I would strongly recommend that you focus on "vanilla No-S" and don't get bogged down in this kind of fine-tuning.

After you've been doing No-S for... oh, a year or so... you will naturally get in better touch with your body's needs/preferences - which vary strongly from individual to individual. It takes about that long, IMHO, to clear out some of the junk and bad habits from your system so you can start seeing your real needs.

At that point, you might investigate this kind of diet... or not. As BA says, "we are all an experiment of one." That is a really insightful observation - more and more, medical science is finding that there are strong individual variations in responses to the same treatments.

(In fact, I've been disregarding this discussion for the most part because (1) I already KNOW that highly restrictive low-carb approaches make me miserable on multiple levels and (2) Since I avoid processed foods and use the half-plate-veg mod, that pretty much takes care of my refined-carbs issues without further attention. But that's just ME...others may benefit from this exploration.)

[BrightAngel]

Today Connorcream
posted an interesting link which is the first of 4 videos on
Blood Sugar: Why you can't lose the weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RE4cXeX7Po&NR=1

I was impressed with this simple, yet informative, presentation,
of issues which go very well with the concepts in Taubes' new book.
Especially with chapters in the first part of his second section,
which I am now involved in briefing.

I like the way she started with the Basic issues,
and then made a natural progression to those more complex.

I was interested in her confirmation that individual bodies differ,
...which is one of the more intriguing things I find about diets....
and I plan to watch that 4 part series again later
to more specifically watch the way she addresses that issue.

[Kevin]

This is just my opinion, but it comes from years of captive study of insulin and blood glucose (I have been a Type I diabetic for 32 years).

Most cultures in the world have a plant-based combination (of grains and beans) that provides all the protein that is necessary to be healthy, and does not digest into glucose quickly. For the vast majority of people, this diet is fine.

I think the big problem for most people is refined carbohydrate, which might as well be sugar. Scrape the salt off a saltine and put it in your mouth until it begins to dissolve. It's as sweet as sugar, with almost no digestion. Look on the glycemic index: it's very high.

(Trivia: the highest glycemic index bread is the French baguette. On some scales, it's higher than dextrose, which is the bench mark at 100!)

As you digest food, your body responds to blood glucose increases by secreting insulin. It isn't hard to imagine that the body over-secretes insulin in the presence of too-rapidly digesting food. Then your blood glucose gets low, which your body will respond to by making you ravenous, so you eat more. Rinse, repeat and gain weight. I think this is what Taubes describes.

A simple way to make a positive change would be to switch to high protein pasta rather than giving up pasta (the Barilla Pasta Plus is a good example - I can tell you from experience that I inject less than half the insulin I would for straight-up pasta), switch to high protein, high fiber bread and made with bean flour and whole wheat flour.

One nutritionist told me that the first step to getting control of my blood glucose was to eliminate bakery products from my diet. I rarely eat more than 30 grams of bakery-product carbohydrate in any sitting.

[Graham]

This is just my opinion, but it comes from years of captive study of insulin and blood glucose (I have been a Type I diabetic for 32 years).

Most cultures in the world have a plant-based combination (of grains and beans) that provides all the protein that is necessary to be healthy, and does not digest into glucose quickly. For the vast majority of people, this diet is fine.

I think the big problem for most people is refined carbohydrate, which might as well be sugar.

Whilst I bow to your experience with insulin/diabetes, I must disagree with one point you make here - I don't think the diet you describe is "fine" unless you are physically active. I spend many hours with people from the Indian subcontinent - they are all rice-eaters and all have serious recurrent obesity problems - including heart attacks, by-pass surgery etc. They are all well-educated, well-to-do and leisured. Their servants and employees, by contrast, are also eating the white rice, but are physically busy, and slim.

My view is that so long as the carbs are counterbalanced by obligatory activity, obesity is held at bay. Take away the work-load and the pounds can pile on alarmingly quickly. That is my own observation, though it is confined to one type of diet in one geographical region.

I think what Taubes is saying is that the effect of carbs varies with both individual susceptibility and time of exposure. The more affected the person is, the more drastic the measures they may be obliged to take to restore metabolic equilibrium, and there may be a point beyond which diet can no longer reverse the situation.

[Kevin]

I'm sure you are right, but is any diet "safe" if you are not physically active?

This is just my opinion, but it comes from years of captive study of insulin and blood glucose (I have been a Type I diabetic for 32 years).

Most cultures in the world have a plant-based combination (of grains and beans) that provides all the protein that is necessary to be healthy, and does not digest into glucose quickly. For the vast majority of people, this diet is fine.

I think the big problem for most people is refined carbohydrate, which might as well be sugar.

Whilst I bow to your experience with insulin/diabetes, I must disagree with one point you make here - I don't think the diet you describe is "fine" unless you are physically active. I spend many hours with people from the Indian subcontinent - they are all rice-eaters and all have serious recurrent obesity problems - including heart attacks, by-pass surgery etc. They are all well-educated, well-to-do and leisured. Their servants and employees, by contrast, are also eating the white rice, but are physically busy, and slim.

My view is that so long as the carbs are counterbalanced by obligatory activity, obesity is held at bay. Take away the work-load and the pounds can pile on alarmingly quickly. That is my own observation, though it is confined to one type of diet in one geographical region.

I think what Taubes is saying is that the effect of carbs varies with both individual susceptibility and time of exposure. The more affected the person is, the more drastic the measures they may be obliged to take to restore metabolic equilibrium, and there may be a point beyond which diet can no longer reverse the situation.

[Graham]

I'm sure you are right, but is any diet "safe" if you are not physically active?

That's a many-sided question. Just to be alive is to be active to some degree, we'd have to decide what we meant by "physically active" and "safe" to discuss it sensibly.

Perhaps a more answerable question would be "is there a manageable, sustainable, comfortable diet which won't cause obesity (or would reduce it if it already exists) in a carb-sensitive sedentary individual (e.g. drives a car everywhere, has a desk job, avoids voluntary exertion)?"

I think Taubes work addresses that question and suggests a low-carb diet would fit the bill. For example, we are told the Atkins diet was originally designed to reduce the obesity of bed-bound hospital patients, and was successful. It doesn't mean there are no benefits to be had from exercise of some sort, though the ideal frequency, duration and intensity of that activity is again a matter of debate.