I think the thing that helps me lose weight is that I do a zero carb diet once in a while, and also do IF sometimes. So the rest of the diet keeps me at the proper weight, and these measures reduce my weight. I don’t exercise much, once a week if I am lucky. So exercise is not the reason for my weight loss.

So high carb is really not that bad, if you do avoid unhealthy things. I definitely was insulin resistant, when I started. I had fatty liver with reduced liver functioning. I lost weight inspite of my T3 T4 levels being at the lowest level of the standard recommended range. I would think that the most important thing is to vary your diet. A fixed diet is not as good as a varying one.

@ Tom: Was your high carb diet devoid of wheat grains etc. (different boat than potatoes and rice from what I’ve seen) and frankenstein fats? Don’t confound factors like many before you.

All evidence is not in yet, and is probably unlikely to become so for a while.

No, I didn’t know better at the time. My diet was wheat pasta, potatoes, rice, etc. Margarine (ick!) on bread. Hard to say exactly which foods were causing the damage.

Carbohydrate ingestion and even absorption rate are unrelated to insulin resistance. It may exacerbate the condition, but it’s simply not causal.

The oversimplified “carbs are bad” theory will never be a sufficient explanation for the whole picture though. It can’t explain why the Japanese are so much healthier than Americans on an 80% carbohydrate diet, why Neal Barnard or Joel Fuhrman have reduced fasting and postprandial glucose levels in their patients as well as lower A1C’s, why the Pima were healthy when their diet was based on high-glycemic carbs like potatoes, grains, and corn (prior to modern foods), or why guys like T.L. Cleave, Robert McCarrison, Weston A. Price, and Denis Burkitt found countless examples of agriculturalists on predominantly carbohydrate-based diets with profound levels of health (large stature, immunity to tooth decay, lack of heart disease and cancer, obesity and diabetes – regardless of exercise levels).

Anyway, I’ll continue to share with you how I’ve put the pieces of the puzzle together. Keep up the good work.

Hey, I’m always up for learning more. It’s an interesting alternative hypothesis, although again in my case I experienced weight gain and other problems on a high-carb diet devoid of sugar, and I’ve seen the same thing happen to other people.

I think there’s something to the theory that certain ethnic groups have adapated to starches that have been in their ancestral diet for a long time. People with Middle eastern ancestry, for example, seem to be able to tolerate wheat better than northern Europeans.

Most low-carb scientists believe that carbs are inherently bad, but there is nothing wrong with rising and falling insulin levels in response to a glucose-heavy meal. Carbs are only a problem is you are insulin resistant, and truly unrefined carbs do not cause insulin resistance. Low-carb advocates oversimplify that just as low-fat people oversimplify the lipid hypothesis – they assume fats just jump from your plate to your arteries as if that is somehow it’s natural destination.

By the way, I finally did see your movie last night. It is friggin’ awesome. I’m really impressed. Truly. You touched on all the important points. It’s like an enjoyable Taubes. Thanks Tom.

I’ve wondered, since researching the film, what my response to carbs would be if I’d never discovered sugary cereals as a kid and become insulin-resistant as an adolescent. Perhaps I would be able to eat unrefined carbs without gaining weight. However, I also seem to be one of those who has trouble with wheat producing an arthritis response, which is due to the lectins. Bottom line for me is that I don’t need wheat, so I skip it pretty much entirely.

Glad you enjoyed the film.

Using Tom’s analogy…

If you are concerned about how your car is running when you use one grade of gasoline versus another grade of gasoline……rather than how your car runs when you use diesel….rather than gasoline…….you have mis-placed your focus.

Please don’t misunderstand….I am a big proponent of grass finished beef……..strive to produce the VERY best grass finished beef………but NOT because of nutritional value…..(higher fat beef may actually be better for your health – Gary Taubes)………rather, because of other factors and especially the superior flavor of good grass finished beef.

IF your concern is animal welfare……then the debate of grass vs grain finished is somewhat valid. I say only somewhat……because it all depends upon the individual conditions of any grass only or feedlot situation. In some cases…….feedlot confinement can be better for the animal’s health and well being than strictly grassfed situations. As with many things…..the details and individual situations matter.

That’s pretty much the attitude I take on it. We ordered some grass-fed meats from a local producer, but I had a steak at a restaurant yesterday and it was probably corn-fed. Still beats the pasta and rice I used to eat.

I also saw a letter written by a farmer in which he explains that when they let their chickens run wild, about a third of them get killed and eaten by predators. I can understand wanting to protect your flock.

I always found I performed best in exams after having a jog. Potentially this got rid of all the excess sugars and whatnot so my brain had to use body reserves (fat) to power it, so it ran more efficiently. I guess the two caveats of that are; a) I have always been active (at the moment I would be spending 10hrs a day on my feet) and b) I never followed a low fat diet. There’s way too many factors for any conclusion to be reached from my anecdotes, but I think you have a very valid point.

@Tom Naughton

“I hope someday there’s enough demand for pasture-fed meat that the industry will be forced by economic factors to move in that direction.”

I’m almost through the Tom Woods lecture on your other blog. Having seen it, you should know that economic factors driving change are now a myth. If the demand shifts, then the government will step in to subsidise grain fed meat (already done to a degree) and probably tax grass-fed.

Well, it’s still economic factors that drive change — the Fed’s manipulation of interest rates and the money supply is a huge economic factor — but your point is (sadly) true … as long as Congress continues to suck up to the grain lobby, they’ll use subsidies to affect supply and demand.

Whatever gets the message across.