https://www.medpagetoday.com/specia...xclusives/94985

Last month, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN) published a perspective piece that stirred up tensions in the worlds of epidemiology, physiology, and nutrition. Doctors and researchers argued on Twitter; commenters defended and derided related opinion pieces, and lay audiences read headlines such as, "Overeating isn't the primary cause of obesity" and "Study finds primary cause of current obesity epidemic."

I've been a low carber (off and on) for well over a decade now, and it's so frustrating to me that this debate is still raging with this intensity.

"There are also more effective, non-diet interventions for obesity than ever before, like bariatric surgery, said Klein, and semaglutide (Wegovy), a weight management medication."

And for those of us who prefer to avoid major surgery and medications? If you're arguing for the simplistic CICO model and backing up with "look, forget dieting, here's some pills and/or we'll cut you open," then I don't think you have a lot of confidence in your diet.

Dr Lustig points out maybe it's the bread not the butter that's the cause of obesity .


The world is still catching up on the insulin hypothesis.

I jumped down the rabbit hole on twitter (linked from the article Dodger cites above) and am finding numerous experts pushing the energy balance model vigorously (while also saying "hey, we've got great drugs now!" - almost makes you think they'd rather push pills than help people resolve their weight problems with an effective diet).

I just ran across a new article by Taubes published today: https://www.statnews.com/2021/09/13...nce-of-obesity/

I'm reading it now, but I see one researcher on twitter threatening to write a piece exposing the serious flaws in Taubes' article. Let's see if he actually writes it or just alludes to the flaws without naming them.

ETA: Correction, the Taubes' article is dated Sept. 13, 2021, not today.

Really. This again. Ask the many participants in this site and others (Diet Doctor comes to mind) whether or not there’s ample evidence that low-carb eating actually works.

No, it’s not “scientific” evidence, in the sense of controlled studies. But who cares? As some old saying has it: Person saying it can’t be done should not interrupt person doing it.

Whatever the physiological theory, long-term commitment to LCE (many different versions) does result in long-term weight management success. Probably much more than any other approach, even bariatric surgical intervention. (I don’t have data on that assertion, so don’t hold me accountable please)

Medical providers who fail to offer low-carb solutions to their obese clients are not paying attention.

Is low-carb sustainable? Yes. Does it require relentless adherence to its principles? Yes. Nobody ever said weight management was easy. Low-carb simply makes it humane—and delicious.

Spare me the naysayers.

Here I am, nearly half the size I was 20+ years ago, and I maintain it with not very much effort. I relentlessly adhere to principles but it's not really very hard for me to do. Not only do I not crave the foods I no longer eat, it astounds me that people still eat those foods which are poisoning them.

I have no patience left for this kind of ridiculousness from so-called scientists. Bariatric surgery or dangerous medications vs healthy nourishing foods. There's no contest.

I haven't been on this site in some time. I do follow some low carb researchers and doctors on other media. Seeing people - and very influential people too - having these same discussions they were having years ago makes me want to weep.

That Taubes article I mentioned above-- every bit of it was covered in GCBC. I marvel that he doesn't get tired of repeating himself - poor guy. And yet they're making the same arguments they've always made. "Don't you believe in the first law of thermodynamics?" I don't know if they don't understand his argument or if they don't want to.

What bothers me is that, even though more and more people seem open to keto, there are still too many who see it as a crazy fad diet. And some of those people could be helped by it. And when influential people refuse to endorse keto as an option, they're complicit.

Yes. The AJCN paper that kicked off this thread sounded almost like plagiarism. All the usual suspects in LC world.

Although I've been LC since about 2001, I've explored many variations. A couple of years ago, I realized that my LCHF "reward" substance--heavy cream in my coffee--was not helpful. I went back to black. I also faced the fact that "the drinking man's diet" (circa 1960) was also not helpful. Alcohol is technically low carb, but as an energy source, it definitely interferes with LC weight loss goals.

At present, I'm reading up on high(er) protein. As an older person, I'm learning that less fat/more protein might be helpful. So far so good.

So let those scientists duke it out. My N=1 is working just fine, thank you.

Barbara, Dr Atkins doesn't put alcohol as an option until near the end of his program, like close to goal weight. It runs to first in line causing disruption enroute, lol.

As for more protein, I've tried to communicate this to 86 yr old mother. At the very least, she heard me on adding ACV daily to her diet....aids in increasing acidity in stomaches to to break down the meat into absorbable amino acids. She had decreased the amount of meat she consumed in a day. For whatever reason.

Thanks for posting this article
It boggles my mind that no one will fund a definitive research study that will answer this question

I've seen too many overweight and obese so-called nutritionists telling me how to eat to stay slim.

I tried a number of different diets to keep myself out of the 300 pound club like the rest of my family and found one - it was called Atkins introduction back then, decades later keto

I don't know if keto will work for everyone, but it works for me and my wife.

My advice is to try different ones until you find one that works for you, and then stick to it as long as it keeps working.

Of course, I'm not an expert so that isn't professional advice, just what I think is a bit of common sense.

Remember a lot of the proposed diets are influenced by people who want to make a profit by selling you what they have to offer.

Bob

Almost as annoying as doctors who have never been fat saying "All you have to do is eat less and exercise more."

Dr. Atkins was/is my hero because he had a bad weight problem, and figured out what worked for himself. He didn't have all the science, but he had a lot of happy customers in his office.

It's no wonder it took so long to work out the Scientific Method. It's apparently not natural for human beings to evaluate information based on how accurate it is.

In a world where the Rice Diet creates three different metabolic paths where 1) it works, 2) where it seems to do nothing, and 3) where it's distinctly bad for participants; how can we make this better?

A world where our two biggest killers, heart disease and cancer, are treated in ways that has nothing to do with what we now know creates these issues? Because we've got giant structures perking along with the wrong therapeutic approaches.

In my own area of struggle, autoimmune, it's clear that the Dr Wahls' approach helps me and so many others. Yet exploring diet is NOT part of the standard of care. MS, Parkinson's, and ALS are all horrifying diseases, all connected to Dr Wahls research... and STILL no one seems to know about diet and degenerative nerve disease.

This is a good point; however, when examined in more detail, it makes sense that the high-quality studies to unravel the truth don't exist. There are many people and organizations (corporate, government, other) that would like to control the narrative and have no incentive to fund the enormously expensive studies required. It's like the line from the movie A Few Good Men, "You can't handle the truth." For the pharmaceutical companies who purport to provide improved health and save lives, funding a study that results in correcting health issues with simple food choices is something they would never fund. Their products would lose market share. For food manufacturers, it's similar in that they'd like to market their foods as healthy, especially heart healthy. These are the two most likely groups that would fund such studies, but they don't really want the truth to be uncovered. When you look at the financial support Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and other soft drink manufacturers have provided to sports, medical programs and groups, and other entities to be able to market lifestyle claims, it's staggering. This is why it's unlikely we'll get the studies we need and why we need to continue with our N=1s to the extent that growing popularity due to improved health results in more widely shared knowledge. It's happening, but many still succumb to the popular beliefs touted by those with vested interests. The majority are reluctant to go against these strongly communicated messages as they have become a pervasive part of the current cultural belief systems.

When reading anything, it's important to remember that in a Capitalist / "Corporationalist" country, everything is profit motivated.

For a corporation, nothing matters but this quarter's profits. They must be greater than last month's which must be greater than the one before that, which must be greater than the one before that, ad infinitum, or the stockholders will jump ship. Why invest money in a corporation that is on an even keel and not making more and more and more and more profits?

So...

The sugar companies can fund enough biased studies to tell you sugar is good for you, or that artificial sweeteners will get you even fatter than sugar.

The for-profit medical industry would rather treat your illness than cure you, because as long as they treat you, you are a customer, if they cure you, they can't sell you anything anymore.

There will be no double-blind tests for any natural remedy that isn't patentable because the big boys and girls can't make as much profit with them as they can with their patented products.

Corporate veggie/grain farming is a much bigger industry than corporate meat farming, thus they have more money, and so you see more adicles (articles that are ads) about how much healthier we would all be if we ate nothing but plant-based foods.

I'm old enough to remember "Four out of five doctors recommend Camel cigarettes." They were touted as the perfect way to reduce stress.

So you must read everything with a critical eye, if you want to get closer to the truth.

So many studies, books, and media are nothing more than advertisements either to promote a product, or kill the competition. Keep that in mind when you read or listen to anything.

Bob