Fri, Sep-17-21, 04:05
|
 |
|
|
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
|
|
For readers of Dr. Michael Eades Newsletter, The Arrow, today's edition #37, includes his comments about the article and explains CIM as illustrated by the graphic. It includes his take on how all these authors who usually have opposing views signed one paper. 
Quote:
Strangely, this long, comprehensive paper doesn't mention meat consumption at all. Instead it tends to describe low-carbohydrate foods a little differently than I would. Or, I'm guessing, as readers of this newsletter would. Here is a sentence that jumped out at me describing the nutritional strategy advocated in switching to a diet more in agreement with the CIM:
"A practical strategy is to substitute high-GL foods (refined grains, potato products, concentrated sugars) with high-fat foods (e.g., nuts, seeds, avocado, olive oil), allowing for moderate intake of total carbohydrate from whole-kernel grains, whole fruits, and legumes and nonstarchy vegetables.
As I say, not a mention of meat. Or, as the more enlightened these days call it, food of animal origin."
Perhaps there were politics involved in an effort to get the whole array of people--some of whom have blasted low-carb diets in the past--to agree to be listed as co-authors. Whatever the reason, I found it a bit grating.
|
Conclusion of CIM
Quote:
|
If you cut calories, but keep the calories you do eat high-carb calories, then you continue to stimulate the release of insulin and all that goes along with that. If, on the other hand, you reduce your carbs, insulin falls, and your fat cells give up their contents. The fat coming from the fat cells tells your signaling system that you have plenty of fuel available, so you're not plagued with hunger. I hope this explanation helps. If it doesn't, you can always study this graphic from the article. It basically says the same thing.
|
[Graphic]
Quote:
|
One of the primary arguments for the CIM, in my mind, at least, is the number of studies collected by the Public Health Collaboration in the UK looking at low-carb diets vs low-fat diets. The folks who run the PHC have found 67 RCTs done over the past couple of decades comparing the diets, and, well, there is really no comparison. Of the 67 studies evaluated, 58 showed greater weight loss with low-carb diets than with low-fat one. In 7 of the 67, the low-fat diet brought about the greater weight loss. But when all these studies were looked from a statistical perspective, 36 out of the 67 showed a statistically significant weight loss with the low-carb diet whereas none, zero, showed a statistically significantly greater weight loss with the low-fat diet.
|
|