Also, I’m open to suggestions, so please don’t hesitate to leave a comment or contact me directly at email@example.com.
Affiliatelinks:stilllookingforapairofhotblueblockers?Carbonshade and TrueDarkareoffering15%off withthecouponcodeLAGAKOSandSpectra479isoffering15%offHERE. IfyouhavenoideawhatI’mtalkingabout,readthisthenthis.
Disclaimer: I’m pro-LC (P<0.05), but not anti-LF because LF works better than LC for some people. And with the exception of things like keto for neurological issues, I think macros take a back seat to many other factors.
Myths: carbs cause insulin resistance (IR), diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. Carbs are intrinsically pathogenic. If a healthy person eats carbs, eventually they’ll get sick.
And the only prescription is more keto.
And of course all of this could’ve been prevented if they keto’d from the get-go.
Proponents of these myths are referring to regular food carbs, not limited to things like Oreo Coolattas (which would be more acceptable, imo). Taubes, Lustig, Attia, and many others have backed away from their anti-carb positions, yet the new brigade proceeds and has even upped the ante to include starvation. Because “LC = effortless fasting?”
Does this sound sane?
“No carbs ever,
no food often…
no one in their right mind would say lentils & beans cause diabetes
Take a group of obese people and assess insulin sensitivity however you like: some researchers demand nothing less than a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp (Gold Standard), others are OK with insulin levels during an oral glucose tolerance test.
Next, divide the people up based on this — there are a few ways you can do it. You can: take the top half vs. the bottom half (a method which includes everyone); take the top third vs. bottom third (excluding the middle third); take the top quarter vs. bottom quarter (excluding the middle 50%), etc.
THIS MATTERS because in referencing this topic, many people claim most obese are insulin resistant. They may be more insulin resistant than lean people, but even within obese people, there’s a spectrum, and the spectrum matters in this #context.
I didn’t want to blog about the artificial sweetener study; to be honest, I didn’t even want to read it. I just wanted to report: 1) how many Diet Cokes are we talking about; and 2) when are you going to die.
Non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) = saccharin, sucralose, and aspartame. Saccharin worked the best (worst) in the mouse study, so they tested it in humans. This was the part I found most relevant: seven healthy volunteers (5 men & 2 women, aged 28-36) who did not typically consume a lot of sweeteners were recruited and given 120 mg saccharin three times per day. 360 mg saccharin is ~10 packets of Sweet’n Low.
From what I gather, it’s been difficult to pinpoint the role of plants in the diet of our ancestors for a variety of reasons. For example, evidence of plants on cooking tools and dental remains is suggestive but doesn’t disprove the possibility that said evidence came from preparing the plants for some other purpose (eg, tools, weapons, or medicine), or that the stomach contents of an herbivore was ingested (which gets partial credit).
That said, after reviewing a few studies on the topic (see below), it’s safe to say that plants were eaten, probably frequently, and the types & quantities varied seasonally & geographically. Collectively, the data suggest we aren’t carnivores.
@CaloriesProper I do wonder why there is so much debate around this? Ancient humans ate plants and animals. The end.
The original lipid hypothesis stated, more or less, that lowering blood cholesterol would reduce premature mortality from heart disease. At the time, it was thought that dietary cholesterol and saturated fat increased the ‘bad’ type of blood cholesterol, so the advice was to restrict those foods. All of that was wrong.
About a decade ago, Michael Brownlee posited that AGEs were one of The Four Horsemen responsible for the microvascular complications of diabetes.
Thereafter, the image below (or a closely related one) appeared in at least one talk at every major diabetes conference for about 5 years. Then it faded – maybe not because it is wrong, but rather just too simplistic to be useful (similar to CICO & ELMM).
“A diet rich in processed foods and fat – and the extra weight that comes along with it – may actually cause fatigue, a lack of motivation and decreased performance, according to a recent study involving lab rats… excessive consumption of processed and fat-rich foods affects our motivation as well as our overall health.”
(this is categorically false as both diets used in the study being discussed were very low in fat.)
The theory itself isn’t too far-fetched: a crap diet can cause weight gain and reduced energy expenditure, or a tendency to minimize any kind of physical activity… instead of: “’laziness’ causes obesity.” And whether or not it’s true, unlike what some would have you believe, this wasn’t the study to prove it.