Yes, I agree. Whether your primary concern is weight loss or not, it’s hard to ignore the other improved health indicators on lowcarb/atkins. Better cholesterol and blood pressure levels for one, and I’m convinced that regularly high insulin levels contribute to mental problems like Alzheimer’s and Dementia.

I think I’m somewhere in the middle, based on experience. But I keep the carb count pretty low because I’m convinced grains produce negative effects beyond weight gain.

I feel at times Gardener appears to be somewhat clutching at straws, trying to find other reasons why perhaps it may not have been reduced carbs that was responsible for weight loss recorded or improved health markers. For example he suggests that water consumption may be responsible for the fact that Atkins adherer’s were more successful, but Barry Sears Zone diet also suggests “(a daily water intake of eight glasses of eight ounces each.)” and that did not result in the same weight loss response.

Similarly he appears in this exchange with Jimmy Moore to be trying to distance himself from being associated with giving any credibility to Atkins.

As someone who reduced weight after reading Taubes by following a relatively modest low carbohydrate regime I suppose I may have been somewhat evangelical.
But, I continue to follow that way of eating, without difficulty, and without regaining weight, so I see no reason to change, nor any good reason to refrain from suggesting low carbohydrate diets to others.

I wondered myself if he’d had a chance to read Taubes’ book, especially when he theorized that people on the paleo diet consumed fewer calories because they were bored with eating the same foods over and over. I suspect it’s because they were satisfied on fewer calories, since they weren’t raising insulin levels and driving calories into storage.

I had to laugh when he put in the warning a la “surgeon general” style that high amounts of protein can harm your kidneys.. and laughed even harder when he said that most people get enough dietary protein already. HA! Sure… the food pyramid recommends I get 6.5 oz ( I really need 12 oz) and my husband 9.5 (he needs 16 oz per day). Yeah, that sounds like we get *plenty*!

Good points. I once managed to starve myself down to 165, but I was losing muscle in the process.

I’d like to see the data split out that way too. I suppose the people who actually followed the Ornish diet lost more weight too, but what a way to live …

I’ve been pondering grains and our current addiction to them since I don’t believe they helped us evolve our big brains. But, they factor into the modern diet everywhere so this is what I think may have happened. Millions of years ago we were eating lots of nutritious bugs (modern humans still have a chitinase enzyme), small mammals and other scaveneged or hunted meat, but things really took off when we figured out how to get into the braincases of scavenged or hunted prey to eat their FATTY BRAINS. The carnivourous cats do well on an all meat diet, and they are not as advanced carnivores as we are so I think it was our cleverness in getting at and eating brains that changed us the most. (I bring up the cats because there was a ridiculous comment thread over at Eades’ blog about how we could not have evolved as carnivores because cats are carnivores and they didn’t end up like us!).
All well and good and then about 10,000 years ago (to less than 5,000 for Northern Europeans) we started being to clever by half and began eating wheat. We aren’t adapted to it except for in one way…….it enhances our reproduction. Lots of carbs, lots of insulin, lots of substrate for good mating and populating (some would say overpopulating) the planet. And wheat’s downside is that after we’ve reproduced it wrecks havoc
with every system in the human body (the gluten and other proteins and not the carbs in it), but the ‘damage’ is already done if we’ve already produced offspring and the after effects or the longevity and continued health of the individual is moot at that point.

I refuse to do the math, but…

On all of the diets, it looks like most of the actual weight loss took place in maybe 25 percent of the dieters. Gotta wonder what the average carb content was for the Atkins dieters within that twenty five percent.

These were premenopausal women, right? That means less visceral fat, higher hdl, lower triglycerides, a high proportion of pears over apples, compared to men and post-menopausal women– historically, less metabolic syndrome. But Atkins 1) is most effective for those with metabolic syndrome and 2) was the most effective diet in this study involving premenopausal women? Yikes.

It would be interesting to see if they break down the data within groups. He did mention adherence seemed to play a big part.

Sounds like it’s worth taking a look. I also make reasonable substitute with spaghetti squash.

I saw Fat Head a few weeks ago and have rewatched several times since then…this was after a friend hooked me up with the Weston A. Price Foundation. I’m a college student with a lot of weight to lose and after giving calorie restriction and vegetarianism brief, unsuccessful tries, I’m ready to try a nourishing diet. I’m going to blog about it (clicking on my name should take you to the blog, I think)… I’m still in the preparation stage as I’m your average broke college student with next to no cooking skills, ha. Anyway, hope you can take a look from time to time! And thanks so much for your film… I hope you don’t mind the superlative when I say it’s the most important film I’ve seen in my life!

Well, that’s quite a superlative, but I happily accept. Check in now and then and let us know how you’re doing.

http://thefatexperiment.wordpress.com

I often find myself having a sandwich or toast because that is just what is available/obvious/easy.