This recent post by Kurt Harris at PaNu is worth a read:

No Such Thing as a Macronutrient, part II: Carbohydrates.

Here's a teaser quotation from the blog:



Good fun.

I think the central claim in this post is:



His position is that the main factors that make people unhealthy and subsequently unable to handle glucose and starch anymore are fructose, PUFA, and wheat. For many of us, it no longer matters how we got unhealthy, because we will probably never be able to tolerate glucose and starch in significant amounts. From a prevention standpoint, however, it does matter.

Sorry, but yet another off-topic comment:



LEGO. Definitely not 'lego'. The LEGO group risks losing their protected trademark (LEGO) when people use the word as a noun or verb as opposed to a proper adjective. It should at least be capitalized at the beginning (Lego), and at best be capitalized it it's entirety (LEGO).

Furthermore (from The LEGO Group):

"The word LEGO is a brand name. We would sincerely like your help in keeping it special. Please always refer to our products as "LEGO bricks or toys" and not "LEGOS." By doing so, you will be helping to protect and preserve a brand of which we are very proud, and that stands for quality the world over."

I know it's probably too late, the word has entered our lexicon. Like Xerox.

Thanks for the link, Ubizmo. I do find Harris interesting (if a little cranky) and have begun comparing his take on nutrition with Jaminet's. They seem to be converging, don't they?
However, I am not yet quite convinced that toxins cause obesity. I'll need to keep reading and rereading those posts and references.

There's some convergence, yes--also with Stephen at Whole Health Source.

The term "toxins" gets thrown around quite a bit by a lot of people, and they don't all mean the same thing when they use it. For Harris, the principle toxins, as related to obesity anyway, are fructose, PUFA, and wheat germ agglutinin. Of course, mainstream scientists and nutritionists don't consider these toxins. Obviously, PUFA is essential to life, in small amounts; and fructose in small amounts appears to be a harmless energy source. But in the amounts in which they are consumed in the developed world in recent decades, they are toxic.

I don't doubt they are toxic to some degree, but I haven't seen anything that makes me believe eliminating them will help in weight loss.

The Eades's book, The 30-Day Low-Carb Diet Solution differs from their earlier books in emphasize liver dysfunction as an important cause of obesity, and their plan includes drastic reduction of fructose and PUFA to reverse liver dysfunction. They include a fair amount of scientific documentation. They include anecdotes about how their own weight wasn't where they wanted it to be, so they needed to find ways to make their diet work better.

Moreover, I find it very believable that increased consumption of fructose and PUFA are the main causal engines behind the increase in obesity in the US for the past 30 or so years. Animal fats have been demonized to the extent that high-PUFA vegetable oils are used almost everywhere. Not only has high fructose corn syrup been added to everything, but we have been so indoctrinated about "fruits and vegetables" that we think nothing of massive fruit sugar consumption, in the form of juices, etc.

Well, I tried the latest Eades book (Middle-Aged Middle), and while I can see how a stressed liver (alcohol, nsaids, etc.) slows weight loss, the effect for me was marginal. I completely eliminated vegetable oils and grains and have all but eliminated fructose in the past three years (salad vegetables and tiny amounts of berries remain). I have steadily gained weight over the past two years. No doubt, eliminating those toxins from the general population will pay off in the long run, but doing so has no dramatic benefits for the individual in the short term. At least not this individual.