Yes. In the old days I could eat a one pound bag of potato chips and still be hungry. Now, I eat a one pound steak and I'm good for hours and hours and hours.....

Just to clarify....following your and NancyLC's logic, it's the carbs that causes the damage? The thing that does not make sense to me is, if your body does not take the cholesterol from, say, eggs, and then (in a nutshell) place it in your arterties, then how does the carbs damage the arterties?

I just started the chapters on carbs, I hope some of this gets clairfied, right now I am still fuzzy on the logic. (probably years of low fat dogma talking here... )

Thank you for the wonderful discussion on this, its nice to talk about it with folks and have them not get ticked off...

That makes alot of sense! I can't wait to get to that part of the book...

Insulin and hyperglycemia are both damaging to the endothelium and may, in fact, be the driver in atherosclerosis and CVD/CHD.....the lipid hypothesis is based upon the observation that some with disease states have elevated cholesterol levels...yet, the ultimate outcome measure - death - isn't found to be a linear progression based upon total cholesterol or any subfraction level....but it is what we're led to believe in our desire to "treat" what really is a symptom rather than get to the heart of the underlying problem.

You might be interested in reading through the 33-year data gathered in the Whitehall Study - Diabetes Care, 2006: Relation Between Blood Glucose and Coronary Mortality Over 33 Years in the Whitehall Study

"All-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality were elevated among participants with glucose intolerance...There was no evidence for a dose-response relationship below 2hBG = 4.6 mmol/l. Between this level and 11.1 mmol/l (200 mg/dl), the age-adjusted hazard ratio was 3.62 (95% CI 2.3–5.6)."

" threshold model with linear slope best described the dose-response relationship between postload blood glucose and CHD mortality risk."

Thank you for that, it was very interesting. But the study I found only partained to diabetics and people with glucose intolerance. What if someone doesn't have that? Would the reaction be the same I wonder? Do you have link to the article? Maybe I found the wrong one....

That's it. I have heard so many many comments about this book, I am buying it today. Reading it tomorrow.

When you read about AGEs later on it might make sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanc...tion_endproduct

But one thing that happens is that when your blood glucose is high sugars start to bond to proteins which cause damage all over the body.

The point the Taubes book tries to make is that diabetes isn't an on-off switch, there's a whole continuum of metabolic problems that start long before diabetes does. A person might never get diabetes but after years of high carb living might still have sufficiently high blood sugar much of the time to cause damage. And additionally probably has far too much insulin around (hyperinsulinism) which is also quite damaging. There's a difference in the life expectancy of some who gets up in the morning and has a fasting glucose of 97 (which isn't considered diabetic) versus 80. And I suspect someone who hit 140-160 after eating a meal versus someone who stays below 120, or even 100 or less.

Insulin isn't evil, but having the amounts of it most people do in this high carb era, it does a lot of damage over time.

It's interesting. There seem to be so many things that we need to even live, but too much of them will kill us or at least damage our health.

I am continuing on reading the book, but with all the research talk the main points get a little bogged down. But that's a good thing!

What you said makes sense. The constant "spikes" in insulin is where the damage comes in....makes sense! Thanks!

After I reached my target weight of 195# (I'm 6'2", medium bone density), I looked for new, cheaper life insurance. The company I chose had me undergo a rather cursory physical exam. I wasn't (and am not) hypertensive or diabetic, but when it came time to determine my insurance premium they "sadly" informed me that they were unable to give me the lowest rate because my total cholesterol was high.

It has always been "high", but what's infuriating to me is that 20 years ago, "high" was considered a much higher number than it is today. So, I wish I had used your insurance company instead.

If it's of any use, it was Northwestern Mutual.

I've been slowly going through the book again from the beginning, flagging things I want to type as notes.

I just recently reread all the bit about studies where a few fewer people died of heart disease-related issues with 'veggie vs animal' type fats, but then more of 'em died of cancer, so it evened out. The idea that the horror of cancer and alzheimers are just as related to food as fat, is really staggering to me. It makes me astonished that more people aren't more concerned.

Why do people have to get fat before they care? I suspect it's only that failure to keep off fat through traditional means leads eventually to lowcarb, which finally leads to real education about the subject. What a shame for the years lost, but what a bigger shame for all the people lost to those diseases.

Well said. I would not have been educated if it wasn't for me trying to lose weight.

There's a lot to be said for MODERATION in all things! Take water, for example: vital for life, yet drink a huge amount very quickly and this vital thing can kill you....this happened last summer where a woman took part in a water guzzling contest and died from it.

Think of how a tiny, tiny pill can affect your body. It doesn't take a lot of something to do its good. We need fat, and modern society and misinformation is attempting to remove it entirely from the diet. We need to eat fat, the right fats, but that doesn't mean you wolf it down in huge amounts.

One huge problem is what Taubes said....think of the influx of carbohydrates (the evil gluten grains) in virtually everything. It all adds up. Also the vegetable oils which are used in everything. Soy additives. Sugar sugar sugar. Small amounts occasionally of any of these things probably wouldn't be so bad, but stuffing these things down the hatch day after day, meal after meal....it results in an overload which the body can't handle, and thus, it revolts.

The whole Taubes book was so eye opening on every level. I'm about to read it a second time. There's too much to absorb with one, two, probably even three readings!

While not wanting to open another can of worms, I think it's the same reason human's seem incapable of electing governments that will inflict the necessary economic hardship that will stop human carbon dioxide emissions from trashing our planet. People like the idea of stopping climate change, but when it comes to fuel or electricity tripling in price, they just can't be bothered and are more likely to indulge in the sloppy thinking that leads them to believe greenhouse gas/climate change deniers.

People really would rather believe the paradigm that goes on allowing them to eat evolutionary design innappropriate amounts of fatty/carby food, until the evidence is either staring them in the mirror, a cardiologists scary diagnosis, or the screen of a glucometer. Even then they'll still almost have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that fatty carby food is almost impossible for humans to eat 'in moderation'.

Stuart