12

votes

Stephan Guyenet challenges generally accepted ideals with direct statements about Carbohydrates and Insulin. Do you agree or disagree?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created May 17, 2011 at 10:00 PM

If you are not making waves with at least some controversial proclamations, you're probably not making a very big impact either.

In Stephan's article from today, he addresses 3 additional questions that he did not get to address on the Chris Kresser Podcast. He discusses a few topics that have brought some fiery comments from his readers.

He made quite the controversial statements about carbohydrates... two in particular:

"I think that an optimal diet for lean healthy people is probably not restricted in macronutrients, and if anything a diet biased toward carbohydrate is better for overall long-term health than one biased toward fat."

and in the comments, he said:

"However, I think most of our ancestors have probably been eating more carb than fat for a very long time, so my default stance at this point is that if you're going to bias your diet toward a macronutrient, I'd go for carb."

Also, regarding insulin:

"Foods that spike insulin the most in humans lead to the greatest satiety and lowest food intake at subsequent meals".

In a nutshell, Stephan said...

1. a carb based diet is probably healthier than a fat based diet.

2. our ancestors ate more carb than fat for a long time, so high carb is probably better than high fat.

3. eating foods that spike insulin the most is a good thing.

1 and 2 are very similar, just said in a different way, but all 3 points certainly challenge much of what I've come to understand after going Paleo.

Do you agree or disagree with these statements from Stephan?

Stephan Guyenet on Carbohydrates, Insulin, and Bodyfat Setpoint

Update May 18, 2011: Stephan has added a follow up post in response to some of the outcrys...

Clarifications About Carbohydrate and Insulin

22aca1dc806bd60acbbe310b26c617cf

(0)

on May 28, 2012
at 05:49 AM

For the record, switching to a low carb, high fat and protein diet has helped me gain muscle and strength and reduce hunger. I have a lower body temperature and I do feel cold in certain environments, but feeling cold is nothing new for me (I felt cold on a high-carb diet, even though my body temp tended to be higher).

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:08 PM

*"NO ONE in their right mind could believe this "Dr. K" guy is actually a real-life doctor."* - - - insert foot in mouth now?

5dffdd2f807170dcc66d6d687f4e2ba4

on July 16, 2011
at 09:07 PM

The science of increasing maximal lifespan is a much more powerful science. It also has no footsteps to follow from our “paleolithic” past. However, modern science is telling us a lot.

5dffdd2f807170dcc66d6d687f4e2ba4

on July 16, 2011
at 09:06 PM

Cliff, thank you for your comment. However I am not missing this at all. High carbohydrate eating is almost universal throughout the world now. There are differences primarily in kinds of carbohydrate that are eaten. Most of the societies that supposedly have a longer average lifespan eat high quantities of non-digestible carbohydrates. It is essentially a low retained calorie diet. Furthermore, all of the longevity studies pertaining to indigenous cultures are referring to increased average lifespan. What I'm talking about is increasing maximal lifespan. They are not the same.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 09, 2011
at 11:55 AM

Cooked tubers fall under the category of high quality easy to digest food. Richard wranghams book explores the idea that cooked USO(underground storage organs) fave us the easily digestible energy needed to fuel our large brains. Your theory about insulin spikes and aging misses the fact that just about every culture revered for there longevity eat a relatively high carb diet.

796d2266c54ffe57bf43a00b4315b747

(44)

on May 25, 2011
at 12:34 AM

what is it with EVERYONE having such a hard time giving up grains? THEY ARE NOT GOOD FOR YOU. do the research and stop following guru's with clay feet.

Ee1a3fd7d5c4eace610c929c556b895c

(38)

on May 23, 2011
at 03:23 AM

300 million people in the US, you doubt that at least 2 million people are both following the SAD and healthy? I came to this link and read some responses along the lines of "I'm ignoring him because I don't believe in that" and figured I'd throw in some reason to the discussion. Paleo is built on questioning what is generally accepted,right? I've stated don't become complacent with knowledge, realize some that eat poorly will stay well, some that try and eat well will become ill; weigh and go with the best evidence. Interesting "major downvote" considering your recent voting system post.

Ee1a3fd7d5c4eace610c929c556b895c

(38)

on May 23, 2011
at 03:22 AM

300 million people in the US, you doubt that at least 2 million people are both following the SAD and healthy? I came to this link and read some responses along the lines of "I'm ignoring him because I don't believe in that" and figured I'd throw in some reason to the discussion. Paleo is built on questioning what is generally accepted,right. I've stated don't become complacent with knowledge, realize some that eat poorly will stay well, some that try and eat well will become ill; weigh and go with the best evidence. Interesting "major downvote" considering your recent voting system post.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on May 21, 2011
at 08:53 AM

"generally accepted" leaves some room, ya know. i did not say "100% accepted as rock solid truth" did I? Stephan certainly challenged generally accepted ideals within the Paleo community. And I know it's fun to make stuff up sometimes, but sorry... millions of people were not healthy on the SAD. Not a chance. And yes, these statements were quite controversial. that's why there are so many comments under the article even though it just came out. Major downvote.

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on May 19, 2011
at 08:46 PM

OMG....if you people think that 'insulin spikes' cause fat gain you really have more reading to do...

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 19, 2011
at 05:40 PM

i wasn't joking about being broke, unfortch, so trainers and barbells and suchlike are out. being poor is a crappy excuse for being UNFIT tho. prolly i just gotta get into some old-timey living-room calisthenics. how unglamorous.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on May 19, 2011
at 02:50 PM

I do tend to lead towards moderation for myself but that's after self experimentation and a consideration of my goals as an individual. I'm probably hitting around 40% carbs 20% protein, 40% fat. There's reason to believe that individuals who could not thrive doing liponeogenesis would have faced selective pressure in the last last several years. But still I'm very open to any of the sides being more ideal. I do think we'll start to see issues from people eating overly nutritious diets which will add a layer of juicy confusion to this whole optimal health scene.

Ee1a3fd7d5c4eace610c929c556b895c

(38)

on May 19, 2011
at 02:29 PM

We can't survive without carbohydrates. They are necessary to sustain human life. Period. The distinction is that dietary carbohydrates are not essential, but including them in your diet is giving your body what it absolutely needs to sustain life, saving it the work of producing them from something else.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on May 19, 2011
at 02:12 PM

Jimbo, I agree with what you say, but I would put fruit at the very bottom of the list. All of the root veggies you cite have very little sugar and, by extension, almost zero fructose. They're by definition, starches. Fruits, however, do have significant sugar content. Now, I've never heard of any tropical islanders becoming diabetics on a fruit-heavy diet. But I think it's theoretically possible, since fructose is a "dose-dependent hepatotoxin", as Dr. Lustig says. But ur are right: roots, tubers, and bulbs never wrecked anyone's metabolism. The low carb people don't seem to get that.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 19, 2011
at 01:49 PM

I agree with you jack. High fat does a lot of good for many people. I just kind of see it as medicine, as in its really good for dysfunctional people to heal themselves with. Its also good for inactive folk who just wanna live well and generally healthily. But I think as soon as you have a default healthy human being who is most likely going to want to engage in some kind of strenuous activity at least recreationally, a carb-based, or at least a diet higher in carb than fat, is going to serve them well. not essential, no. but i do think they will look, feel, perform better if you will.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 19, 2011
at 01:41 PM

My 2cents is that Andrew illustrates it correctly. I would veer towards feeding the body glucose from eating carbohydrate rather than having it manufacture its own thru gluconeogenesis. i believe thatforcing the body to make its own glucose all the time for long periods of time like maybe 6 months or so causes an amount of chronic stress. I think the body is kind of like, boy it'd be rad if there were tubersfruitsvegetables around but I suppose if i HAVE to I'll make it myself. And i think this situation is going to inevitably lead to some degree of performance degradation in activity.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 19, 2011
at 01:37 PM

wow, never heard of a chaturanga before. I've only done bikram yoga and we never did that one. Doesn't look easy, I wouldnt beat myself up about not being able to do it. I think many would say Rippetoe's book/site is a good way to learn about the basic, compound, old timey lifts: http://startingstrength.com/ That being said, I think paying a good trainer to at least show you for a few months how to properly execute the movement Rippetoe teaches is worth it, if not wholly essential. Thats what I did since at 31 years of age lifting heavy stuff was totally new to me.

C0fb17636e18784b9770c850755ae52e

(0)

on May 19, 2011
at 12:59 PM

NO ONE in their right mind could believe this "Dr. K" guy is actually a real-life doctor. He has the grammar and usage of an 8-year-old and spends so much time on here that any real-life patients would be sitting and waiting while their doc was posting online here at Paleo Hacks. I really liked it when he was caught copy-and-pasting articles and presenting them as his own words without attribution.

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on May 19, 2011
at 07:21 AM

Andrew, I would appreciate your answer to the question you have concluded with - assuming moderation is not best, which side of the road do you veer towards?

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on May 19, 2011
at 02:29 AM

Alright Aravind, you're good to go. Instant reputation boost.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on May 19, 2011
at 02:28 AM

No, Sherpa, not Ben the baby doing weight training, Ben the one with the same picture as Ben61820. If I may assume that's what you were assuming. http://paleohacks.com/users/864/ben

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on May 19, 2011
at 02:24 AM

Wait. "Ben" is "Ben61820"?! OMG. I thought you were two totally different awesome Ben's. Hahaha.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 19, 2011
at 01:16 AM

you don't have any links laying around that tell weaklings how to start training at home do ye?

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 19, 2011
at 01:12 AM

i've thought about it plenny. yr right - i need to do it. plus for bone density, etc and a million other reasons.. lifting heavy stuff seems to be the ticket. not sure how to get started is the thing.. i'm brizzoke. actually wait.. i'm bullshitting! i need to start with MY OWN BODYWEIGHT. goddammit, duh. ok. no more excuses. i can't even do a proper chatturanga, honestly. it's embarrassing. but really, if i could join a crossfit, i would. thx for all the input - i appreciate! :)

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 19, 2011
at 01:05 AM

Oh I need to merge my two accounts too. When I'm on my iPhone I'm stuck just as "Ben" but from my PC I'm logged in as "Ben61820."

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 19, 2011
at 01:02 AM

Anyway you could try lifting heavyish weights instead of running etc? Lifting heavy is pretty killer at body recomp. Your muscles will grow and regardless of if you have less body fat or not your body will start looking better. Many talk about the hormonal improvements brought about my lifting iron, too. Id def think about it.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on May 19, 2011
at 12:49 AM

and it's also worth noting that gluconeogenesis is an expensive process and it's going to be pretty darn stressful if it's your only way of getting glucose. You need glucose. The question is it better for your body to make it or is it better for you to give it to your body. And then if you're consuming uber high levels of carbs most of them are going to be pushed through de novo lipogenesis which will create palmitic acid. Is it better to create carbs from protein in a low carb diet or fat from carbs in high carb diet? Or is the middle of the road the best. Lets not just assume moderation best

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 19, 2011
at 12:44 AM

ok. starting.. now. no, wait.. starting.. when that bar of kerrygold is gone.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on May 19, 2011
at 12:43 AM

We can survive without carbohydrates. Without any at all. It may not be optimal to. We can't survive without protein. We can survive without a good amount of fat as well although some fats are essential meaning that they can only come from the diet. These fats (omega 6 and omega 3) ought be though more akin to trace minerals. Only a little is needed. After you get to those the question is what's optimal. What cause more oxidation, what increases cell life, etc. Just because you don't need it doesn't mean it won't be helpful.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 19, 2011
at 12:41 AM

initially the diet change was for inflammation/joint stuff but then it became apparent it was helping my mentals so now i'm def in it to win it, for good. earlier this year when i went hi-fat/PMVLC (pretty much very low carb), i opted not to bite off more than i could chew (so to speak, heh) - but now that i'm fairly acclimated, and it's pretty apparent the weight isn't going to just "melt off" i guess i'm ready to try to make an effort to lose the chub. goodbye, cream! hello, calorie-tracker and running shoes that haven't touched pavement since that stupid half-marathon last fall!

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on May 18, 2011
at 11:43 PM

@WCC Paul - let's use this one please. Thanks!!

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on May 18, 2011
at 10:57 PM

Just because calories matter, doesn't imply that conscious calorie restriction helps weight loss. You have to feed your body in such a way that it desires fewer.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on May 18, 2011
at 10:53 PM

The most dramatic effect that ZC has had on my health is in the realm of mood, not weight (though that was also significant), so just because someone doesn't have a weight problem, doesn't mean a ketogenic diet wouldn't be helpful. Anything brain/neurological is a strong candidate.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on May 18, 2011
at 10:33 PM

Aravind, I'll merge your accounts if you like. Which one do you want to log into? This one (3311) or the other one (3724)?

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on May 18, 2011
at 09:56 PM

@Ben/Uwin - I didn't even know how to spell "ignorance" in my retort. Down vote ASAP and add me to the list of incoherent people in this forum. Jokes aside, I really am not looking for conflict. With the utmost of sincerity, I do believe The Quilt has something to offer, but delivery is everything. The best message with the wrong delivery is a wrong message. Anyway, enough philosophy for one day.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 09:24 PM

im waitin for that podcast on LLVLC. can. not. wait.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 09:22 PM

yeah, always remember that calories do matter. you eat too many calories and you'll gain weight, period. All agree on this - Taubes, paleofolk, everyone. If you've got 25 to lose I would bet that you could do well with LC or VLC. That and of course physical activity. Morning fasted brisk walking for 30 minutes or so will prolly help. for my 2cents id def ditch dairy if you're trying to lose but many would disagree. Try LC for all your eating, morning fasted walking, and track your cals. If LC alone don't drop LBs then track cals and if you're at, say, 2k now try 1900 etc.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 18, 2011
at 07:37 PM

@khwa.. Quilty won't "do your work for you", as he once commented. I guess you must wait for The Blog. But don't expect a discussion there either, as discussion is futile in matters of Truth!

7ee01316570b660bd47e9481e8db7c30

(60)

on May 18, 2011
at 06:59 PM

The Quilt/Dr K, You frequently reference "the science" and "the data" in your arrogant, ungrammatical, and oftentimes borderline incomprehensible comments. Perhaps you wouldn't mind enlightening us plebs by providing some actual links and references? Specifically, I would love to see data that supports your barely articulated disagreement with Stephan regarding leptin.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 18, 2011
at 06:27 PM

i'm non athletic, i've got about 25 extra lbs on me and 'gut issues'. so far i feel great, but i'm not losing weight. CW would reason i'm getting too many calories.. and that may be true... if i want to shrink i might actually have to get off my ass and quit chugging heavy cream, alas. :P

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 18, 2011
at 06:25 PM

'm non athletic, i've got about 25 extra lbs on me and 'gut issues'. so far i feel good, but i'm not losing weight. CW would reason i'm getting too many calories.. and that may be true... i might actually have to get off my ass and quit chugging heavy cream if i want to shrink. alas.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 18, 2011
at 06:23 PM

i'm non athletic, i've got about 25 extra lbs on me and 'gut issues'. so far i feel good, but i'm not losing weight. CW would reason i'm getting too many calories.. and that may be true... i might actually have to get off my ass and quit chugging heavy cream, alas.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on May 18, 2011
at 06:03 PM

After seveal hours I appear to still be alive :) although I may now have several watermelon seedlings growing in my stomach.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:58 PM

ignore Quilt, dude. save your time and energy. The guy has been spouting nonsense on here for a while now. Most of us have just come to ignore his rather blunt, poorly formulated, poorly thought-through goofiness.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:56 PM

nice, leo. sounds like what i grub usually. eating in this way is pretty cool too for those that eat with groups at restaurants a lot cuz (if its an issue for one) what you end up with on the plate doesn't draw unnecessary attention. It allows you to enjoy the meal, the company, yknow?

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:53 PM

many could make an argument for grains, too. Rice is mentioned (by me, too). But the basic, the fundamental, the bottom line, the core that the people that started this whole line of thinking like Cordain, etc advocate and that works across the board is very simply stated as AVOID GRAINS LEGUMES DAIRY. Tons of people choose to amend and eat dairy, yes. me, too. i go for cottage cheese these days to sneak in extra protein. but i don't feel that changes the core idea behind paleo: Three things are inherently problematic to differing degrees for us, Grains legumes and dairy.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:49 PM

@Uwin, not necessary. If you are overweight then some sort of VLC will quickly get that off, which will be a step toward you getting generally healthier. If you're not overweight, but merely skinny and feel shitty from SAD, etc then i wouldn't think LC/VLC would be necessary at all. i see LC/VLC being good for reconciling overweight and the issues that go along. It'll help you towards natural body comp. Once there I don't see LC/VLC being necessary at all. you could keep it up, sure. many do. but if you're interested in explosive athletics and that next level of health then I'd say higher carb

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:18 PM

that's a nice point Christo. In fact, this is kinda what I did. Not for 3 years, but rather about 4-6 months, when I transitioned out of VLC to LC, then moderate carb, where I've been for the last nfew months. I like moderate carb much better than low carb. More options. More variety. I do think that VLC is a good option for many people to fully withdraw from the nasties of SAD for a time.

3a833804187fe8926214e6c0bd8a0766

(1023)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:17 PM

@Namby Totally agree, I've been saying this for quite awhile now. People hear "carbs" and usually think bread, pasta, potato and dessert then say "all carbs are bad." I've seen enough evidence to convince me that things like unrefined rice, potato/root veggies and fruit just aren't the same thing as Wonder bread and shouldn't be in the same category. So, potatoes? Yes please. Wheat, corn and soy... no thanks.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 18, 2011
at 04:50 PM

do you guys still see high fat/VLC as a necessary/recommended step in achieving the health you currently enjoy? I'm asking as someone still transitioning INTO it.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 18, 2011
at 04:06 PM

@jack: yes, my statement requires refute to be valid. shrug.. but i said it because certain people here always speak in absolutes, and i don't think it's particularly useful. the only 'truth' about science is that there are no absolutes, all is perception, and science itself will evolve and present ever more questions as long as mankind pursues it. *not that it isn't worthwhile*.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 18, 2011
at 04:04 PM

sounds like somebody's worried their bubble might get popped before they even get a chance start their Ultimate Truth blog.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on May 18, 2011
at 03:24 PM

@The Quilt - since you have asserted I am a follower, show me one post where I have made a comment that would substantiate your claim. On this site, I have lost count of examples I could provide where you claim to know the truth. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. I am very comfortable asserting my ignornance on certain topics. Finally, we all have to make choices regarding the allocation of our time. For me, nutrition is not my vocation, so I have to rely on sources that I have vetted to the best of my ability to help guide me, like Stephan Guyenet. If that makes me a follower, so be it.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 03:20 PM

succinct. i share your experience. I think there are others here, too. high fat, and VLC can really get the body set in the right gears after being abused for years on a SAD, etc. But after youre all healed up and ready to live life like a default, healthy human being can, that way of eating may no longer offer such tremendous benefits and rewards. As our internal environment changes I suppose we must change what we feed into it.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on May 18, 2011
at 03:17 PM

@The Quilt - I didn't realize you were following me on different sites. Seems like there are better uses of your time given your vast knowledge. I wrote above that "I certainly have my questions based on the initial parts of the series, but I intend to let him fully elaborate his position before judging it" - so that makes me a follower, not a thinker? If that makes you feel better about yourself, so be it. Moreover, you wrote "There is not multivariant...". Grammar notwithstanding, I may not be a biochemist, or an MD, or an expert of any sort, but your statement is absurd.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on May 18, 2011
at 03:15 PM

Ben: many could make any argument for dairy.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:27 PM

I will never doubt your sarcasm Thomas.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:25 PM

I agree carbs are vilified.....but it never is discussed in it's correct context. If your leptin resistant they must be vilified until balance returns to energy balance. If you are sensitive you can handle carbs. This data is the missing link in 99% of paleo minds.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:22 PM

Mathew that is true looking at systems.....leptin control all energy balance in humans controls all fecundity and all hormaonal control. Dr Murphy has proved it and gotten awards for it. Because many are clueless to it shows that uncommon thought lead to superior results. And accepting the common gets you confusion or average results.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:20 PM

Much the same physicist believed in "in ether" as a suspended gas in space prior to Eo steins theories. He solved that dilemma convincingly but it took 16 hrs for the common thinkers to accept the science. The beauty of science it is true whether you accept it or not. No omniscience required......it is easy throw insults from ignorance.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:19 PM

I believe Alex brings up a great point with the comment that starts with "What I believe...". Stephan does in fact make a pretty broad generalization that probably a better default diet for most should lean toward higher carbs than fat. From everything I've observed, including many many testimonials and my own personal experience, I cannot say that I could, at this point, confidently support that a carb based diet is a better choice for most vs a more fat based diet with moderate amounts of protein and healthy carbs.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:18 PM

Aravind having read your comments on several sites I think your a consensus follower instead of thinker. The reason Stephan makes these assertions is because he has not chosen to look into leptin deeper. He needs to read Friedman Murphy and lecea work and once he does he would not make the hypothesis he does. Some of us clinicians have changed our mindset of allowing opinions to trump biochemistry and physiology. You can make no sense out of nutrition research unless you know the animal or human was in control of what controls it. The set point theory is caused by this confusion much the

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:06 PM

yeah I should have included grains as I generally think of them as 'processed'. Here's some more (anecdotal) proof http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576327624238594818.html

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:49 PM

Grok has a good point. I myself would think LC does better generally with T2. But those in the raw community have many anecdotal stories about curing, or at least addressing well, T2. I watched this years ago: http://www.rawfor30days.com/index4.html I'm not a follower but noone can deny that it works for people. once again I think we see its about the EXCLUSION of poisons, rather than necessarily the INCLUSION of certain foods (be those foods paleo or not). Bottom line: eat less processed fake food, perhaps?

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:44 PM

@ROB, I do not base it on rice at all. i eat rice maybe once a week. Daily I eat about 40-40-20 in pro/carb/fat for macros. Basically every meal is a bunch of meat and some tuber. Either the fat attached to meat is enough or if its a lean cut I'll make a point to have a teaspoon or two of coconut oil. Done. Easy. I also eat fermented veg from either kimchi or sauer kraut every single day. Makes my tummy happy.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:42 PM

Matthew, if you like, I can arrange for an ambulance to come to your house and take you to the hospital to have your stomach pumped.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:42 PM

Summed up much better than I could do, Kamal. nice one. i definitely share the sentiment. I think much of this discussion can be broken down by realizing that there are TWO camps of people: those looking for weightloss and those just looking to be healthy and function optimally. All the weightloss focus naturally because of media goes towards LC/VLC. As I and many others maintain "paleo" has never had a macronutrient bias as far as I remember. Its about eating non-deleterious things, done. Paleo=AvoidGrainsLegumesDairy.

07c86972a3bea0b0dc17752e9d2f5642

(3162)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:40 PM

my diet now is about 80-100 carbs worth of white potatoes or white rice a day, eggs, fatty beef and some pork/bacon and fish. Plus moderate amounts of relatively high carb vegetables like carrots, tomatoes, onions, squash and usually some salad, banana and berries. Other than my cooking fats, the only fat I add is a 1/2 T. of butter to my mashed potatoes. My treats are nuts, cheese and chocolate but I only have about 3 oz. of all three combined a week.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:37 PM

nice one. I agree. I will add that one thing i think "paleo" really has going for it, as an adendum to what you answered, is that excluding grains is pretty awesome. i mean, I have yet to meet anyone who functions better on grain. I am NOT referring to lowcarb/highcarb or lowfat/highfat, merely that people generally feel better without grains in their eating. Even if, like many of us leading pretty active lives, they still eat a lot of carbohydrates. Eat real food all the time. Done.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:35 PM

Since when has Stephan ever been a "paleo" person anyhow? i was reading him before Paleo was even around. He's been a WAP guy forever, talking about souring/fermenting/sprouting grains, etc.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:33 PM

I hate sarcasm ;)

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:06 PM

The Masai diet is NOT high-carb, unless getting 60% of your calories from fat makes you high-carb somehow. It contains carbohydrate, obviously, but to call it high-carb is pretty bizarre and would render such labels meaningless. It's at best moderate carb, probably even on the low side relative to SAD.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on May 18, 2011
at 11:24 AM

Pretty much anything to do with us humans has multiple variables :)

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on May 18, 2011
at 11:10 AM

@Thomas: I got the sarcasm :) unfortunatly there are people out there who would really mean it...

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on May 18, 2011
at 11:08 AM

I just ate some watermelon for my breakfast :)

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on May 18, 2011
at 10:08 AM

good point, kamal. before paleo, i could only keep my weight under control by low-carbing. however, after my metabolism repaired itself, i have been able to eat tubers and rice without worrying about fat gain or it making me wanting to devour everything around me. i've gone from one end of the spectrum to now leaning more in the camp of those who argue that it's actually food quality over macronutrients.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on May 18, 2011
at 08:16 AM

A voice of reason.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on May 18, 2011
at 08:13 AM

Leo keeping it real :)

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on May 18, 2011
at 07:57 AM

What about them? Please mail all the watermelons, mangoes, and bananas you can find to me. I need fuel for a rocket engine.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on May 18, 2011
at 07:54 AM

Alex, you've kind of missed the boat. Namby Pamby, T2 is cured with high carb diets every day (google Robby Barbaro) you don't have to settle. If you still want to be low-carb eat more veggies.

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on May 18, 2011
at 07:18 AM

from my reading of all the posts on this forum it is apparent that followers are a disparate group, who are each trying to obtain some benefit from this lifestyle, according to where they start from on that quest - from 'jacked' athletes to diabetics - each require a different approach

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on May 18, 2011
at 07:08 AM

"2 cents" - you do yourself a disservice Aravind - most cogently written answer - gets my upvote

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on May 18, 2011
at 07:02 AM

the irony wasn't lost on me

4e184df9c1ed38f61febc5d6cf031921

(5005)

on May 18, 2011
at 06:53 AM

He is quite specific - he believes "that a diet based mainly on freshly cooked starchy tubers such as potatoes and sweet potatoes is probably superior to one based mostly on grains for most people." Last paragraph. How could that be clearer?

02736efa3fda31740e8890eed0cb663d

(1813)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:44 AM

1 and 2 are arguing against things that Stephan didn't say. I think 3 is not as well supported as you imply. There are people that have lived well on high-glycemic-index foods, such as potatoes.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:38 AM

sorry uwinwin. not onboard with that comment. truth definitely exists.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on May 18, 2011
at 04:29 AM

If you come from the LC diabetic camp, you automatically think low carbing is the holy grail. Then you realize that most healthy peoples around the globe ate varying carb levels, as long as they avoided modern, food toxins. That's a revelation, that you can be healthy eating yams, white rice and sweet potatoes. But it's true. The sad part is, it's too late to go back to safe starches if you're already diabetic! Bygones. Some of us just have to kiss them good bye forever.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 18, 2011
at 04:01 AM

"Truth" does not exist.

91219405abedbfd400ce00dea242a00f

(1044)

on May 18, 2011
at 03:41 AM

Quite the opposite, Ben. I don't think ANY particular approach is for everyone. This is why I don't subscribe to generalizations ("such as high carb is better than high fat") As I stated in my previous post, I think that everyone should tailor their diet to themselves.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:30 AM

How is your diet now, do you base it on white rice and tubers? Just interested.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:28 AM

Stephan might have just been referring to athletic folk or just normal folk. They all do fine on high carb. In fact it is only the metabolically deranged and sickly that would require special addressing. Yes they will prolly do better with LC but that is for a specific reason. The majority of healthy individuals need not go LC. If they would stop eating deleterious foods like grains, legumes, and dairy they would be better. I think people with a specific goal like weight loss too often come to the paleo thing and think their particular approach to paleo is what is for everyone.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:22 AM

Good observation. It's not that carbohydrate is innately bad, just that when you limit carbs generally one usually ends up eliminating bad stuff, too. After years of LC and about six months of VLC I felt a lot like what you describe. Then added regular good starch from pall sources and I'm back in action!

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:21 AM

"Shattered". Hasn't anybody figured out how sarcastic I am most of the time on this board?

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on May 18, 2011
at 02:19 AM

@Jack - yes that was me. Need to consolidate accounts. @The Quilt/aka Dr K - some of us are not omniscient in spite of our delusions at times

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:06 AM

There is not multivariant......one this is clear and known. Biochemistry and physiology. When you grasp them in totality the forest is easily seen through the trees.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:05 AM

If you dont understand leptin.......that is the end result. Schooling begins soon.

91219405abedbfd400ce00dea242a00f

(1044)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:53 AM

What I believe this post is falsely promoting is that everyone would do better with a high carbohydrate diet (not just athletes) rather than a high fat diet. This is simply not true as shown countless times through experiences of people on this website or others. If someone with morbid obesity or metabolic syndrome were to read that post, they may be strayed away from what they actually need to do to reduce their weight and become healthier. The post did not specify the target group, and made broad generalizations.

91219405abedbfd400ce00dea242a00f

(1044)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:50 AM

Yes, I understand where you're going with that but Stephan's post did not specify that he was talking about athletes nor did he talk about any specific carbohydrate sources. I understand that ancient people did not all necessarily eat low carbohydrate, but I'm referring to "Paleo" as the set of principles that promote optimum health. From my own experience and from many others, I feel worse when I eat high carb. Then again, I'm not a serious athlete, and I think everyone should tailor their diet to themselves.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:37 AM

I've never up or down voted anything on this site. Never saw the point. But im with you all the way.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:36 AM

Good point, jay. He's been a WAPF guy forever. He's never said paleo is the way! He's always been about properly treated, as in soured, grains.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:35 AM

and yes. great answer. stephan is among the best of the best, and i await his upcoming posts as well.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:32 AM

Aravind what happened to your account? Aren't you the one that asked the question about the dubious parts of the Paleo movement?

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:26 AM

Great answer. .

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:26 AM

Why shattered? Stephan has been consistently saying this for 2 years.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:24 AM

Alex, paleo isn't necessarily low carb. Kitavans are "paleo", as are the inuit. Paleo is used mainly as a framework to avoid toxic foods like wheat, vegetable oils, soy, and fructose.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:22 AM

I doubt he is talking about basing one's diet off of gluten grains or fruits given his past posts.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:21 AM

re #1, just because they avoided the diseases of civilization doesn't mean they were in optimal health. And optimal, I believe, is what he is referring to. I agree on 2. On 3 though, insulin causes fat, but theoretically it should drop down in between meals or overnight or during fasts enough to burn the fat back off. The problem comes when it is chronically elevated, not when it is occasionally spiked.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:08 AM

Then upvote it Ben!

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:04 AM

Good point Mike Jones.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on May 18, 2011
at 12:52 AM

Here is the beauty.......There is one good thing about science......whether you like it or not.......its truth. And Stephan is swimming in a shallow pool of truth now.

B485f0cf678c0b420941e883adfea28d

(304)

on May 18, 2011
at 12:22 AM

1. Examples prove nothing. There are plenty of examples of both. Kitavans for the high-carb side. 2. He's not making the case for processed high-carb foods which is the issue with Italy and America. He's advocating Roots and tubers and properly prepared grains. 3. Spiking insulin is not necessarily bad. Chronic high fasted insulin levels are but it's not clear that regular insulin spikes lead to this metabolic derangement

3eafb88d6a6d762fcfa8ed4eb0576260

(642)

on May 17, 2011
at 11:47 PM

The Masai diet, being full of lactose-rich milk, is high-carb.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 17, 2011
at 11:41 PM

Exactly. Since when has paleo been about macronutrients bias? Never. It's always and simply been about eating quality whole foods and avoiding THREE things: grains, legumes, and dairy. It has NEVER been about low-carb or anything related. Cordain even made a book Paleo Diet for Athletes that is essentially ALL about eating carbs to fuel sport. Don't confuse weight-loss strategies with ways of eating that simply focus on quality and non-deleterious things.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 17, 2011
at 11:37 PM

Well put. I think you're spot on across the board.

D5cde8031564f905260ce9aa7a1f5e2c

(1170)

on May 17, 2011
at 11:32 PM

Alex, paleo needn't be high-fat. It seems to work the best for most, but not everyone. As long as you stick to paleo carb sources (as Ben mentions, carb "does not mean grains"), higher carb should, and apparently does, work.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on May 17, 2011
at 11:24 PM

It is correct insofar as your metabolism isn't wrecked. Mine is with diabetes. Once you have diabetes, it's another story: BG control is paramount. If I didn't have diabetes, however, my Paleo diet would primarily consist of safe starches: white rice, yams, sweet potatoes, yuca, etc. Right now, I introduce safe starches occasionally to ease my constipation from doing Low Carb. As I have said, however, I have not found a solution for my constipation.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on May 17, 2011
at 11:16 PM

This. Generalizations are interesting, but I'm not a generalization, nor a population (well, I guess I'm an N of 1). I've eaten higher-carb paleo and gained weight, and saw a return of symptoms that disappeared in direct proportion to a reduction in carb intake. So, yay pundits and all that, but eat the way that makes you personally feel the best, and brings you personally the best health.

91219405abedbfd400ce00dea242a00f

(1044)

on May 17, 2011
at 11:05 PM

I'm confused. If you agree that point 1 is correct (a diet based in carbs is superior to a diet based in fat) then why are you eating paleo?

796d2266c54ffe57bf43a00b4315b747

(44)

on May 17, 2011
at 10:58 PM

what your "probably" not adding to your "stance" is, 1. The amount of fat the consumed does not affect diabetes risk. 2. the yo-yo effects that high glycemic-index carbohydrates have on blood glucose, which can stimulate fat production and inflammation, increase overall caloric intake and lower insulin sensitivity.

F6ea948ab43dc51d72509c0989e670fe

(1639)

on May 17, 2011
at 10:19 PM

What's funny is that I see the comments on 'the whole health source' discussing this as well, and wondering about it. I've read his stuff before, and like his opinions (for the most part). Guess we can disagree on this one though...

F6ea948ab43dc51d72509c0989e670fe

(1639)

on May 17, 2011
at 10:18 PM

What's funny is that I see the comments on the site discussing this as well, and wondering about it. I've read the site before, and like his opinions (for the most part). Guess we can disagree on this one though...

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on May 17, 2011
at 10:13 PM

My world is shattered.

  • Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

    asked by

    (18472)
  • Views
    6.9K
  • Last Activity
    1405D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

21 Answers

best answer

14
D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on May 18, 2011
at 01:16 AM

My 2 cents-

Whole Health Source, along with PaNu/Archevore and Hyperlipid, has been one of my primary sources of information as I have made my personal diet transformation. Specific to WHS, I recently read every one of Dr Guyenet's posts from start to finish including the comments. I don't throw around compliments lightly, but he is definitely a very intelligent and thoughtful scientist that is able to synthesize recondite and abstruse research results, and present the information in a manner that is accessible to people that are not as technically versed as him.

I have not observed that he makes bold proclamations without having done a substantial amount of research in advance. He has earned my trust. Note this is NOT synonymous with saying I take EVERYTHING he writes as gospel. He also openly acknowledges the uncertainty of some things while other "gurus" implicitly assert their omniscience. I respect this.

In having read all of his posts, there have been many examples where he had multi-part series and left readers (intentionally?) hanging for the next post. Eventually he has always seemed to tie things together. I, for one, will give him the benefit of the doubt that he will do so with the current series on Food Reward. We will see.

The series on Food Reward has the word "dominant" in the title. Not SINGULAR, EXCLUSIVE, ONLY, SOLE, but dominant. Maybe I am misreading the feedback to his posts, but some people seem to have overlooked the inclusion of DOMINANT. Some people, particularly extremists in our community, seem to not only struggle with the multi-variate nature of nutrition, but even more so the prospect that Paleo 2.0+ might challenge the alleged undeniable truths of Paleo 1.0.

I certainly have my questions based on the initial parts of the series, but I intend to let him fully elaborate his position before judging it. Whether I ultimately agree and/or whether it influences my future diet is TBD. Regardless, I eagerly await his next post(s).

Regards, Aravind

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on May 19, 2011
at 02:29 AM

Alright Aravind, you're good to go. Instant reputation boost.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 18, 2011
at 04:04 PM

sounds like somebody's worried their bubble might get popped before they even get a chance start their Ultimate Truth blog.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on May 18, 2011
at 03:24 PM

@The Quilt - since you have asserted I am a follower, show me one post where I have made a comment that would substantiate your claim. On this site, I have lost count of examples I could provide where you claim to know the truth. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. I am very comfortable asserting my ignornance on certain topics. Finally, we all have to make choices regarding the allocation of our time. For me, nutrition is not my vocation, so I have to rely on sources that I have vetted to the best of my ability to help guide me, like Stephan Guyenet. If that makes me a follower, so be it.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on May 18, 2011
at 11:24 AM

Pretty much anything to do with us humans has multiple variables :)

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:26 AM

Great answer. .

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on May 18, 2011
at 03:17 PM

@The Quilt - I didn't realize you were following me on different sites. Seems like there are better uses of your time given your vast knowledge. I wrote above that "I certainly have my questions based on the initial parts of the series, but I intend to let him fully elaborate his position before judging it" - so that makes me a follower, not a thinker? If that makes you feel better about yourself, so be it. Moreover, you wrote "There is not multivariant...". Grammar notwithstanding, I may not be a biochemist, or an MD, or an expert of any sort, but your statement is absurd.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on May 18, 2011
at 02:19 AM

@Jack - yes that was me. Need to consolidate accounts. @The Quilt/aka Dr K - some of us are not omniscient in spite of our delusions at times

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:58 PM

ignore Quilt, dude. save your time and energy. The guy has been spouting nonsense on here for a while now. Most of us have just come to ignore his rather blunt, poorly formulated, poorly thought-through goofiness.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:06 AM

There is not multivariant......one this is clear and known. Biochemistry and physiology. When you grasp them in totality the forest is easily seen through the trees.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 09:24 PM

im waitin for that podcast on LLVLC. can. not. wait.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on May 19, 2011
at 02:28 AM

No, Sherpa, not Ben the baby doing weight training, Ben the one with the same picture as Ben61820. If I may assume that's what you were assuming. http://paleohacks.com/users/864/ben

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:32 AM

Aravind what happened to your account? Aren't you the one that asked the question about the dubious parts of the Paleo movement?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:22 PM

Mathew that is true looking at systems.....leptin control all energy balance in humans controls all fecundity and all hormaonal control. Dr Murphy has proved it and gotten awards for it. Because many are clueless to it shows that uncommon thought lead to superior results. And accepting the common gets you confusion or average results.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on May 18, 2011
at 09:56 PM

@Ben/Uwin - I didn't even know how to spell "ignorance" in my retort. Down vote ASAP and add me to the list of incoherent people in this forum. Jokes aside, I really am not looking for conflict. With the utmost of sincerity, I do believe The Quilt has something to offer, but delivery is everything. The best message with the wrong delivery is a wrong message. Anyway, enough philosophy for one day.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:20 PM

Much the same physicist believed in "in ether" as a suspended gas in space prior to Eo steins theories. He solved that dilemma convincingly but it took 16 hrs for the common thinkers to accept the science. The beauty of science it is true whether you accept it or not. No omniscience required......it is easy throw insults from ignorance.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:35 AM

and yes. great answer. stephan is among the best of the best, and i await his upcoming posts as well.

7ee01316570b660bd47e9481e8db7c30

(60)

on May 18, 2011
at 06:59 PM

The Quilt/Dr K, You frequently reference "the science" and "the data" in your arrogant, ungrammatical, and oftentimes borderline incomprehensible comments. Perhaps you wouldn't mind enlightening us plebs by providing some actual links and references? Specifically, I would love to see data that supports your barely articulated disagreement with Stephan regarding leptin.

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on May 19, 2011
at 02:24 AM

Wait. "Ben" is "Ben61820"?! OMG. I thought you were two totally different awesome Ben's. Hahaha.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 18, 2011
at 07:37 PM

@khwa.. Quilty won't "do your work for you", as he once commented. I guess you must wait for The Blog. But don't expect a discussion there either, as discussion is futile in matters of Truth!

C0fb17636e18784b9770c850755ae52e

(0)

on May 19, 2011
at 12:59 PM

NO ONE in their right mind could believe this "Dr. K" guy is actually a real-life doctor. He has the grammar and usage of an 8-year-old and spends so much time on here that any real-life patients would be sitting and waiting while their doc was posting online here at Paleo Hacks. I really liked it when he was caught copy-and-pasting articles and presenting them as his own words without attribution.

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on May 18, 2011
at 07:08 AM

"2 cents" - you do yourself a disservice Aravind - most cogently written answer - gets my upvote

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 19, 2011
at 01:05 AM

Oh I need to merge my two accounts too. When I'm on my iPhone I'm stuck just as "Ben" but from my PC I'm logged in as "Ben61820."

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on May 18, 2011
at 11:43 PM

@WCC Paul - let's use this one please. Thanks!!

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:18 PM

Aravind having read your comments on several sites I think your a consensus follower instead of thinker. The reason Stephan makes these assertions is because he has not chosen to look into leptin deeper. He needs to read Friedman Murphy and lecea work and once he does he would not make the hypothesis he does. Some of us clinicians have changed our mindset of allowing opinions to trump biochemistry and physiology. You can make no sense out of nutrition research unless you know the animal or human was in control of what controls it. The set point theory is caused by this confusion much the

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on May 18, 2011
at 10:33 PM

Aravind, I'll merge your accounts if you like. Which one do you want to log into? This one (3311) or the other one (3724)?

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:08 PM

*"NO ONE in their right mind could believe this "Dr. K" guy is actually a real-life doctor."* - - - insert foot in mouth now?

16
3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

on May 17, 2011
at 11:14 PM

I don't have real problems with 1 & 2. It's been shown that humans evolved eating a variety of diets. The diseases of civilization engulfing us today have less to do with macronutrient ratios than food toxins (wheat, gluten, casein, refined sugar, refined/pulverized flour). These food toxins all happen to be carbs. That does not mean all carbs are bad. That's what some people seem to miss.

Now, if you have diabetes, you may need to give up safe starches (rice, potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, cassava, turnips, etc.). That's probably obvious.

But it's pretty clear that those tribes that subsited on carb-heavy tuber or even rice diets never contracted diabetes. It was the onslaught of refined sugar/fructose and white flour which is wreaking havoc.

It's also easy to imagine that most tribes ate a carb-heavy diet. It's simply not that easy to subsist on a carnivorous diet. You have tubers that are simply too easy to pass by. Hunting does not always lead to a successful catch. You can go days witout a catch. Also, you couldn't really store your catch.

Now for #3: Perhaps he means potatoes and yams induce initial satiety (they do). I don't think though they cause you to eat less at subsequent meals. They seem to whet your appetite for more food, starch or otherwise.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 17, 2011
at 11:37 PM

Well put. I think you're spot on across the board.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:08 AM

Then upvote it Ben!

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:37 AM

I've never up or down voted anything on this site. Never saw the point. But im with you all the way.

3a833804187fe8926214e6c0bd8a0766

(1023)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:17 PM

@Namby Totally agree, I've been saying this for quite awhile now. People hear "carbs" and usually think bread, pasta, potato and dessert then say "all carbs are bad." I've seen enough evidence to convince me that things like unrefined rice, potato/root veggies and fruit just aren't the same thing as Wonder bread and shouldn't be in the same category. So, potatoes? Yes please. Wheat, corn and soy... no thanks.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on May 19, 2011
at 02:12 PM

Jimbo, I agree with what you say, but I would put fruit at the very bottom of the list. All of the root veggies you cite have very little sugar and, by extension, almost zero fructose. They're by definition, starches. Fruits, however, do have significant sugar content. Now, I've never heard of any tropical islanders becoming diabetics on a fruit-heavy diet. But I think it's theoretically possible, since fructose is a "dose-dependent hepatotoxin", as Dr. Lustig says. But ur are right: roots, tubers, and bulbs never wrecked anyone's metabolism. The low carb people don't seem to get that.

13
5dffdd2f807170dcc66d6d687f4e2ba4

on May 19, 2011
at 09:55 AM

I wasn't even going to comment, but what I have seen here so far is the failure to perceive Stephen's statements for what they really are; "Emperor's New Clothes" i.e. statements riding mostly naked. There may be explanations in the future from Stephan that might dress up and explain the statements, but currently there are none.

Our ancient ancestors likely did not eat significant digestible carbohydrates, as the increasing size of our brain and its concurrent metabolically expensive energy expenditure could not likely have evolved on a high carbohydrate diet. The so-called ???Expensive Tissue Hypothesis??? that is quite famous and popular in paleoanthropology and likely would have already been discussed in this and other paleo blogs previously, describes this. For those unfamiliar, the citation and abstract is below. However, the belief in this "hypothesis" and even what our ancestors ate are moot points anyway. What our ancestors ate is irrelevant for longevity and post-reproductive lifespan. Diets evolved for reproductive success. I have discussed this recently in prior posts.

Whereas I commend Stephen for putting the major onus of obesity and health onto leptin, it appears that he is making a couple of basic mistakes regarding hormone signaling in general, especially pertinent to insulin and leptin. When endogenous hormones such as insulin and leptin do their job, they will keep you healthy. However, it is not the size of a signal that is relevant, but the accuracy of what's "heard". Metabolic diseases, and in fact all diseases, are secondary to miscommunication. The problem with insulin and leptin is not insulin and leptin per se, but insulin and leptin resistance when they cannot get their messages properly heard. The body, and in particular the brain, then responds to high insulin and leptin as if they were low. Stephen seems to miss this in his current post, and more importantly the cause(es) of this. I firmly believe that the major cause of both insulin and leptin resistance is repeated spikes in both of those hormones secondary to spikes in blood glucose, so where there might arguably be a short-term benefit from a spike in insulin and leptin, long-term spikes lead to a reduction in signaling, and more importantly a corruption in the where, when, and how the signal is being received by different organs and cell types.

Also ignored in the post is the copious amount of research over the last 15 years linking elevations/spikes in insulin and glucose with accelerated aging.

The Expensive-Tissue Hypothesis: The Brain and the Digestive System in Human and Primate Evolution Author(s): Leslie C. Aiello and Peter Wheeler Current Anthropology, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 1995), pp. 199-221

Brain tissue is metabolically expensive, but there is no significant correlation between relative basal metabolic rate and relative brain size in humans and other encephalized mammals. The expensive-tissue hypothesis suggests that the metabolic requirements of relatively large brains are offset by a corresponding reduction of the gut. The splanchnic organs (liver and gastro- intestinal tract) are as metabolically expensive as brains, and the gut is the only one of the metabolically expensive organs in the human body that is markedly small in relation to body size. Gut size is highly correlated with diet, and relatively small guts are compatible only with high-quality, easy-to-digest food. The often-cited relationship between diet and relative brain size is more properly viewed as a relationship between relative brain size and relative gut size, the latter being determined by dietary quality. No matter what is selecting for relatively large brains in humans and other primates, they cannot be achieved without a shift to a high-quality diet unless there is a rise in the metabolic rate. Therefore the incorporation of increasingly greater amounts of animal products into the diet was essential in the evolution of the large human brain.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 09, 2011
at 11:55 AM

Cooked tubers fall under the category of high quality easy to digest food. Richard wranghams book explores the idea that cooked USO(underground storage organs) fave us the easily digestible energy needed to fuel our large brains. Your theory about insulin spikes and aging misses the fact that just about every culture revered for there longevity eat a relatively high carb diet.

5dffdd2f807170dcc66d6d687f4e2ba4

on July 16, 2011
at 09:07 PM

The science of increasing maximal lifespan is a much more powerful science. It also has no footsteps to follow from our “paleolithic” past. However, modern science is telling us a lot.

5dffdd2f807170dcc66d6d687f4e2ba4

on July 16, 2011
at 09:06 PM

Cliff, thank you for your comment. However I am not missing this at all. High carbohydrate eating is almost universal throughout the world now. There are differences primarily in kinds of carbohydrate that are eaten. Most of the societies that supposedly have a longer average lifespan eat high quantities of non-digestible carbohydrates. It is essentially a low retained calorie diet. Furthermore, all of the longevity studies pertaining to indigenous cultures are referring to increased average lifespan. What I'm talking about is increasing maximal lifespan. They are not the same.

13
21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on May 18, 2011
at 03:31 AM

I love Stephan's comment, and see criticism of it as a microcosm of a major paleo problem. That problem is "taking your experience and view of the literature as paleo gospel".

Here are some things that have been mentioned as fact around paleohacks in the past few months:

  • Eating more than a few grams of fructose per day will kill you
  • You can't lose weight on a carb heavy diet
  • If you have health problems, you must switch to a high-fat diet

And here are things that have been largely ignored:

  • The liver is a marvelous organ that we don't always have to treat like a delicate little flower
  • Many cultures have thrived with moderate amounts of prepared/fermented grains and beans (i.e. WAPF)
  • One's personal reading of the literature not only doesn't reflect the literature as a whole, but the literature as a whole is a very incomplete reflection of reality.

I have no doubt that Stephan will explain more in later posts. It is one thing to talk about how we can eat no carbs and live, or study Inuit. It is another thing to wade through reading about long term ketogenic diets. Eating a diet consisting of tons of meat every single day, supplemented with extra fat, should not necessarily be considered the automatic winner among best human diets. Note that Stephan does not generalize this at all to medical conditions (e.g. diabetes), and is more careful about making definitive statements than many on paleohacks.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on May 18, 2011
at 08:16 AM

A voice of reason.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:42 PM

Summed up much better than I could do, Kamal. nice one. i definitely share the sentiment. I think much of this discussion can be broken down by realizing that there are TWO camps of people: those looking for weightloss and those just looking to be healthy and function optimally. All the weightloss focus naturally because of media goes towards LC/VLC. As I and many others maintain "paleo" has never had a macronutrient bias as far as I remember. Its about eating non-deleterious things, done. Paleo=AvoidGrainsLegumesDairy.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:53 PM

many could make an argument for grains, too. Rice is mentioned (by me, too). But the basic, the fundamental, the bottom line, the core that the people that started this whole line of thinking like Cordain, etc advocate and that works across the board is very simply stated as AVOID GRAINS LEGUMES DAIRY. Tons of people choose to amend and eat dairy, yes. me, too. i go for cottage cheese these days to sneak in extra protein. but i don't feel that changes the core idea behind paleo: Three things are inherently problematic to differing degrees for us, Grains legumes and dairy.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on May 18, 2011
at 04:29 AM

If you come from the LC diabetic camp, you automatically think low carbing is the holy grail. Then you realize that most healthy peoples around the globe ate varying carb levels, as long as they avoided modern, food toxins. That's a revelation, that you can be healthy eating yams, white rice and sweet potatoes. But it's true. The sad part is, it's too late to go back to safe starches if you're already diabetic! Bygones. Some of us just have to kiss them good bye forever.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on May 18, 2011
at 03:15 PM

Ben: many could make any argument for dairy.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on May 18, 2011
at 10:08 AM

good point, kamal. before paleo, i could only keep my weight under control by low-carbing. however, after my metabolism repaired itself, i have been able to eat tubers and rice without worrying about fat gain or it making me wanting to devour everything around me. i've gone from one end of the spectrum to now leaning more in the camp of those who argue that it's actually food quality over macronutrients.

9
91219405abedbfd400ce00dea242a00f

(1044)

on May 17, 2011
at 11:01 PM

When I ate a high carbohydrate diet (non-calorie-restricted), I felt consistently horrible and could not shake a pound of weight. With a high fat diet, I feel great and the weight is slipping off. I think that is evidence enough for me. The only other way I have lost weight was with a calorie-restricted diet incorporating all foods. Though, I was consistently hungry and had to force myself not to eat. I have not encountered any of those problems eating the paleo way. More people need to rely less on so-called scientists and experts and just do what feels right.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on May 17, 2011
at 11:16 PM

This. Generalizations are interesting, but I'm not a generalization, nor a population (well, I guess I'm an N of 1). I've eaten higher-carb paleo and gained weight, and saw a return of symptoms that disappeared in direct proportion to a reduction in carb intake. So, yay pundits and all that, but eat the way that makes you personally feel the best, and brings you personally the best health.

6
7622ce68c94d31b884e5aeb1e6a4249d

(140)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:42 AM

When a well accepted idea is rebutted by someone considered to be a supporter of this idea, people tend to be confused/annoyed. Specially if this person is considered as a guru or an expert on the subject. This is more obvious in the paleo world. As far as I rememember, Stephan never said and/or stated that low carbohydrate is the only way to go. And by the way, I consider Stephan the most knowledgable guy regarding obesity.

This means that I agree with Stephan regarding high carbohydrate diets? No. This means that his apparently "new" ideas are going to change totally my diet and/or view on nutrition? No. What Stephan is saying is that HIS opinion, based on HIS research, is that a carbohydrate oriented diet is better than a fat oriented diet. People need to understand that humans are metabolically very flexible. We are adapted to survive on different types of diets. Everyone will have their own opinion about the perfect diet, but there are only a few people that are 100% convinced that their approach is the way to go. So when someone respected challenges their ideas, they shiver. This happens when you are not completely sure about your ideas and/or dont understand them in the first place. We must have a holistic approach to nutrition. This coming from a huge proponent of ketogenic diets who does not have a problem when someone supports a high carb diet with valid arguments.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:35 PM

Since when has Stephan ever been a "paleo" person anyhow? i was reading him before Paleo was even around. He's been a WAP guy forever, talking about souring/fermenting/sprouting grains, etc.

4
07c86972a3bea0b0dc17752e9d2f5642

on May 18, 2011
at 01:56 AM

I think that "carbohydrate" is the "saturated fat" of the paleo world.

What people miss is that when you switch to a low carb diet, you neccessarily switch to a low sugar, low trans fat/veg oil and low boxed junk food diet.

I went low carb and felt tons better initially. Looking back, it was obviously because I suddenly stopped eating around half or more of my calories in soda, chips, sweetened cereal, candy, cookies, muffins and sweetened yogurt every day.

A few months of high fat/low carb paleo also gave me: muscle loss, fat gain, slow healing, rough/dry hair and skin, insatiable hunger, insanely high cholesterol and hypothyroidism.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on May 18, 2011
at 08:13 AM

Leo keeping it real :)

07c86972a3bea0b0dc17752e9d2f5642

(3162)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:40 PM

my diet now is about 80-100 carbs worth of white potatoes or white rice a day, eggs, fatty beef and some pork/bacon and fish. Plus moderate amounts of relatively high carb vegetables like carrots, tomatoes, onions, squash and usually some salad, banana and berries. Other than my cooking fats, the only fat I add is a 1/2 T. of butter to my mashed potatoes. My treats are nuts, cheese and chocolate but I only have about 3 oz. of all three combined a week.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:44 PM

@ROB, I do not base it on rice at all. i eat rice maybe once a week. Daily I eat about 40-40-20 in pro/carb/fat for macros. Basically every meal is a bunch of meat and some tuber. Either the fat attached to meat is enough or if its a lean cut I'll make a point to have a teaspoon or two of coconut oil. Done. Easy. I also eat fermented veg from either kimchi or sauer kraut every single day. Makes my tummy happy.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:22 AM

Good observation. It's not that carbohydrate is innately bad, just that when you limit carbs generally one usually ends up eliminating bad stuff, too. After years of LC and about six months of VLC I felt a lot like what you describe. Then added regular good starch from pall sources and I'm back in action!

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:56 PM

nice, leo. sounds like what i grub usually. eating in this way is pretty cool too for those that eat with groups at restaurants a lot cuz (if its an issue for one) what you end up with on the plate doesn't draw unnecessary attention. It allows you to enjoy the meal, the company, yknow?

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:30 AM

How is your diet now, do you base it on white rice and tubers? Just interested.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:25 PM

I agree carbs are vilified.....but it never is discussed in it's correct context. If your leptin resistant they must be vilified until balance returns to energy balance. If you are sensitive you can handle carbs. This data is the missing link in 99% of paleo minds.

22aca1dc806bd60acbbe310b26c617cf

(0)

on May 28, 2012
at 05:49 AM

For the record, switching to a low carb, high fat and protein diet has helped me gain muscle and strength and reduce hunger. I have a lower body temperature and I do feel cold in certain environments, but feeling cold is nothing new for me (I felt cold on a high-carb diet, even though my body temp tended to be higher).

3
E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107

(15613)

on July 09, 2011
at 08:40 AM

It goes without saying that Stephan has produced among the most level-headed and thoughtful posts that there are online. That said, the evidence for his "default stance" here is severely limited and so I'm not that worried.

The only argument he offers in support of his suggestion is:

most of our ancestors have probably been eating more carb than fat for a very long time, so my default stance at this point is that if you're going to bias your diet toward a macronutrient, I'd go for carb.

But this doesn't seem terribly convincing. Hunter gatherers have also spent lots of time burning their own body fat and animal protein. That's the metabolic condition that low carb is mimicking (fasting/starvation/winter/calorie restriction). What foods we have eaten is potentially a distraction from what our bodies have actually metabolised. There seem to be a fair few modern studies showing advantages to carbohydrate restriction/ketosis- I think (and have thought for a while, even before this heresy) that Stephan attaches too much weight to what healthy traditions have eaten in recent history. While the high fat proponent has a variety of suggestions to make as to why, at least in certain conditions, restricting carbohydrate and replacing it with fat would be a good idea (in terms of suggested pathways, metabolic effects etc.), I don't know of any comparable reasons to think that biasing your diet towards carbs would be a good idea and fat a bad one. The only suggestions I hear about fat are things about it being highly rewarding (which on its own, it isn't) and containing lots of calories per gram (which if it's important, can be pretty easily rectified).

In any case, Stephan grants that:

Our metabolism is highly attuned to coordinating the appropriate metabolic response to differing carbohydrate-to-fat ratios... cultures have thrived on practically nothing but carbohydrate (New Guinea highlanders, etc.) as well as mostly fat (Inuit, etc).

So I don't think we ought to think that what different cultures have eaten in terms of macronutrient portions (so far as culture-wide generalisations can be made) is likely to be warrant biasing our diet towards one macronutrient or another. I don't think that "The fact that there are so may healthy high-starch cultures, far more than there are high-fat cultures" adds to the "weight of the evidence at all." This may well be more historical accident (for example, more cultures living in warm climates than cold ones in recent times) than a consequence of high carb diets being superior nutritionally (rather than superior for food security, convenience etc.). I also think it's doubtful that there could have been such a preponderance of higher carb eaters over lower carb ones, that we would have since adapted (somewhat losing our flexibility) to be more able to eat high carb diets. The question of adaptation here is also, of course, a loaded one. Maybe we've evolved such that higher carb ratios lead to some advantages (fewer muscle cramps, higher glycogen levels (for running away from predators), easier digestion, higher growth, higher reproduction, higher serotonin levels and so on), whereas long term low carb diets risk the converse disadvantages, but also reduce appetite, reduce weight, reduce cancer, increase longevity. Perhaps we have adapted to have high carb as our historic default- allowing quick recovery, growth, reproduction, shorter life- but still low carb is the diet best suited to our current situation (in the developed world). There might still be reasons to favour a low carb ratio, based on other reasons, however, if it's granted that the humans traditionally eating high carb diets were more active, getting more sun, less stressed, less metabolically damaged, had lower food availability, than we are presently.

The one reason that I do think there is for possibly favouring carbs over fat is that if you eat 85% of your calories from butter or tallow, then you will have basically consumed no micronutrients (apart from lots of vitamin k2). If you eat 85% of your calories from potato, however, you've already met most of your micronutritional needs and gone more than halfway to meeting your protein needs. Of course, it's possible, of course, for low carbists to rectify this situation though, eating low carb vegetables and being selective about what other foods they eat.

Also, although this hasn't been explicitly mentioned, it does seem to be a factor in some people's considerations: I wouldn't attach too much weight to the fact that Stephan remains lean and healthy, despite eating a high carb diet of potato and lentils. Before going paleo, I (aged ~22) lived on mostly wheatgerm and soy milk and I was very lean, very active and so on and lots of my peers are the same, despite getting most of their calories from added sugar. Thus these anecdotal individual cases shouldn't be treated as being particularly indicative.

3
2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on May 18, 2011
at 07:29 AM

My understanding was that we could survive without any carbohydrates. If so, why would a diet which was based on something which was unnecessary to sustain life, be 'probably healthier than a fat based diet' ?

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on May 19, 2011
at 12:49 AM

and it's also worth noting that gluconeogenesis is an expensive process and it's going to be pretty darn stressful if it's your only way of getting glucose. You need glucose. The question is it better for your body to make it or is it better for you to give it to your body. And then if you're consuming uber high levels of carbs most of them are going to be pushed through de novo lipogenesis which will create palmitic acid. Is it better to create carbs from protein in a low carb diet or fat from carbs in high carb diet? Or is the middle of the road the best. Lets not just assume moderation best

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on May 19, 2011
at 12:43 AM

We can survive without carbohydrates. Without any at all. It may not be optimal to. We can't survive without protein. We can survive without a good amount of fat as well although some fats are essential meaning that they can only come from the diet. These fats (omega 6 and omega 3) ought be though more akin to trace minerals. Only a little is needed. After you get to those the question is what's optimal. What cause more oxidation, what increases cell life, etc. Just because you don't need it doesn't mean it won't be helpful.

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on May 19, 2011
at 07:21 AM

Andrew, I would appreciate your answer to the question you have concluded with - assuming moderation is not best, which side of the road do you veer towards?

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on May 19, 2011
at 02:50 PM

I do tend to lead towards moderation for myself but that's after self experimentation and a consideration of my goals as an individual. I'm probably hitting around 40% carbs 20% protein, 40% fat. There's reason to believe that individuals who could not thrive doing liponeogenesis would have faced selective pressure in the last last several years. But still I'm very open to any of the sides being more ideal. I do think we'll start to see issues from people eating overly nutritious diets which will add a layer of juicy confusion to this whole optimal health scene.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 19, 2011
at 01:41 PM

My 2cents is that Andrew illustrates it correctly. I would veer towards feeding the body glucose from eating carbohydrate rather than having it manufacture its own thru gluconeogenesis. i believe thatforcing the body to make its own glucose all the time for long periods of time like maybe 6 months or so causes an amount of chronic stress. I think the body is kind of like, boy it'd be rad if there were tubersfruitsvegetables around but I suppose if i HAVE to I'll make it myself. And i think this situation is going to inevitably lead to some degree of performance degradation in activity.

Ee1a3fd7d5c4eace610c929c556b895c

(38)

on May 19, 2011
at 02:29 PM

We can't survive without carbohydrates. They are necessary to sustain human life. Period. The distinction is that dietary carbohydrates are not essential, but including them in your diet is giving your body what it absolutely needs to sustain life, saving it the work of producing them from something else.

3
02736efa3fda31740e8890eed0cb663d

(1813)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:53 AM

Yes, if you interpret paleo as being necessarily high-fat, low-carb, than what Stephan is writing goes against paleo. However, I think there's an emerging consensus among most paleo and paleo-ish writers that a healthy diet need be neither.

There's a difference between saying "Saturated fat is not bad" and "you should consume LOTS of saturated fat". It seems to me some people are getting those things confused. As far as I can tell, no one has ever said that a healthy diet necessarily includes large amounts of saturated fat.

Also keep in mind that Stephan qualifies his statements in several ways. He's saying: IF you're going to be biased toward one macronutrient, it should PROBABLY be carbs.

Let's remember that there's still a lot we don't know, and most of us (certainly myself included) don't really understand most of the science of this stuff- we're just believing what certain people say, and theorizing from our personal experience (often poorly).

3
64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:37 AM

To add one more opinion here.... I think that we all like to geek out on foods, macronutrient ratios, insulin, etc. That's why we come onto this site. However, a variety of diets have been shown (eskimos vs. kitavans) to be healthy and allow a generally disease-free life.

Food quality seems to take precedence over everything else, and by that I mean avoiding processed foods and especially sugar, which we can all agree to be detrimental.

I was quite shocked to read his post, however if we're honest (and currently healthy) I don't think it matters what you eat as long as it's real food.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:37 PM

nice one. I agree. I will add that one thing i think "paleo" really has going for it, as an adendum to what you answered, is that excluding grains is pretty awesome. i mean, I have yet to meet anyone who functions better on grain. I am NOT referring to lowcarb/highcarb or lowfat/highfat, merely that people generally feel better without grains in their eating. Even if, like many of us leading pretty active lives, they still eat a lot of carbohydrates. Eat real food all the time. Done.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:06 PM

yeah I should have included grains as I generally think of them as 'processed'. Here's some more (anecdotal) proof http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576327624238594818.html

3
60199d3a580a4e17969059609e48e678

on May 17, 2011
at 11:39 PM

personally I'll let the numbers speak for theirselves. I know countless people that have lost much weight and felt wonderful doing paleo, that by itself should prove its effectiveness.

2
Ee1a3fd7d5c4eace610c929c556b895c

on May 19, 2011
at 02:54 PM

Generally accepted ideals according to whom? Since he never claimed to be paleo, his statements don't challenge generally accepted ideals per-se, it depends on perspective. Its fascinating how people will challenge "generally accepted ideals" of the government, delve into paleo, then lock into a new paradigm; questioning leads to change leads to resistance to further questioning.

Stephen's PH.D., his specific study of the neurobiology of body fat regulation, and existing body of respected work probably trump my experience of "well I read MDA, and sent some friends there, and we lost weight with low carb so this is what works and is healthy" as far as developing evidence for what may be the best path going forward.

I'll chose the best evidence every time. Locking into a low-carb paradigm if the best evidence starts showing it to be less ideal than higher carb would be making the same mistake as continuing to follow the old "eat lots of grains cut animal products" in the face of emerging "fats don't harm, grains do" evidence.

Millions of people have lost weight following calorie restricted SAD (and been healthy). Many have gained weight, had weight loss stall, or developed new health problems following low-carb, even with a whole foods approach. These statements are not controversial. Its important to stay open, and see through "what works for you" and "lots of people have followed this and it worked from them" to "this is information from a justifiably highly respected source" if truly looking for the best answer.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on May 21, 2011
at 08:53 AM

"generally accepted" leaves some room, ya know. i did not say "100% accepted as rock solid truth" did I? Stephan certainly challenged generally accepted ideals within the Paleo community. And I know it's fun to make stuff up sometimes, but sorry... millions of people were not healthy on the SAD. Not a chance. And yes, these statements were quite controversial. that's why there are so many comments under the article even though it just came out. Major downvote.

Ee1a3fd7d5c4eace610c929c556b895c

(38)

on May 23, 2011
at 03:23 AM

300 million people in the US, you doubt that at least 2 million people are both following the SAD and healthy? I came to this link and read some responses along the lines of "I'm ignoring him because I don't believe in that" and figured I'd throw in some reason to the discussion. Paleo is built on questioning what is generally accepted,right? I've stated don't become complacent with knowledge, realize some that eat poorly will stay well, some that try and eat well will become ill; weigh and go with the best evidence. Interesting "major downvote" considering your recent voting system post.

Ee1a3fd7d5c4eace610c929c556b895c

(38)

on May 23, 2011
at 03:22 AM

300 million people in the US, you doubt that at least 2 million people are both following the SAD and healthy? I came to this link and read some responses along the lines of "I'm ignoring him because I don't believe in that" and figured I'd throw in some reason to the discussion. Paleo is built on questioning what is generally accepted,right. I've stated don't become complacent with knowledge, realize some that eat poorly will stay well, some that try and eat well will become ill; weigh and go with the best evidence. Interesting "major downvote" considering your recent voting system post.

2
Fd504de9b242f4cd7009db70af5e2121

(558)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:11 PM

I think that for me,high fat paleo was a corrective diet for years of SAD carb abuse and gut damage.After 3 years high fat I'm over it and I dont feel it's the best choice for long term health.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 19, 2011
at 12:44 AM

ok. starting.. now. no, wait.. starting.. when that bar of kerrygold is gone.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 18, 2011
at 04:50 PM

do you guys still see high fat/VLC as a necessary/recommended step in achieving the health you currently enjoy? I'm asking as someone still transitioning INTO it.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 03:20 PM

succinct. i share your experience. I think there are others here, too. high fat, and VLC can really get the body set in the right gears after being abused for years on a SAD, etc. But after youre all healed up and ready to live life like a default, healthy human being can, that way of eating may no longer offer such tremendous benefits and rewards. As our internal environment changes I suppose we must change what we feed into it.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 09:22 PM

yeah, always remember that calories do matter. you eat too many calories and you'll gain weight, period. All agree on this - Taubes, paleofolk, everyone. If you've got 25 to lose I would bet that you could do well with LC or VLC. That and of course physical activity. Morning fasted brisk walking for 30 minutes or so will prolly help. for my 2cents id def ditch dairy if you're trying to lose but many would disagree. Try LC for all your eating, morning fasted walking, and track your cals. If LC alone don't drop LBs then track cals and if you're at, say, 2k now try 1900 etc.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 19, 2011
at 01:02 AM

Anyway you could try lifting heavyish weights instead of running etc? Lifting heavy is pretty killer at body recomp. Your muscles will grow and regardless of if you have less body fat or not your body will start looking better. Many talk about the hormonal improvements brought about my lifting iron, too. Id def think about it.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:18 PM

that's a nice point Christo. In fact, this is kinda what I did. Not for 3 years, but rather about 4-6 months, when I transitioned out of VLC to LC, then moderate carb, where I've been for the last nfew months. I like moderate carb much better than low carb. More options. More variety. I do think that VLC is a good option for many people to fully withdraw from the nasties of SAD for a time.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on May 18, 2011
at 10:57 PM

Just because calories matter, doesn't imply that conscious calorie restriction helps weight loss. You have to feed your body in such a way that it desires fewer.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 18, 2011
at 06:27 PM

i'm non athletic, i've got about 25 extra lbs on me and 'gut issues'. so far i feel great, but i'm not losing weight. CW would reason i'm getting too many calories.. and that may be true... if i want to shrink i might actually have to get off my ass and quit chugging heavy cream, alas. :P

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 19, 2011
at 01:16 AM

you don't have any links laying around that tell weaklings how to start training at home do ye?

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 18, 2011
at 06:25 PM

'm non athletic, i've got about 25 extra lbs on me and 'gut issues'. so far i feel good, but i'm not losing weight. CW would reason i'm getting too many calories.. and that may be true... i might actually have to get off my ass and quit chugging heavy cream if i want to shrink. alas.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:49 PM

@Uwin, not necessary. If you are overweight then some sort of VLC will quickly get that off, which will be a step toward you getting generally healthier. If you're not overweight, but merely skinny and feel shitty from SAD, etc then i wouldn't think LC/VLC would be necessary at all. i see LC/VLC being good for reconciling overweight and the issues that go along. It'll help you towards natural body comp. Once there I don't see LC/VLC being necessary at all. you could keep it up, sure. many do. but if you're interested in explosive athletics and that next level of health then I'd say higher carb

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 19, 2011
at 12:41 AM

initially the diet change was for inflammation/joint stuff but then it became apparent it was helping my mentals so now i'm def in it to win it, for good. earlier this year when i went hi-fat/PMVLC (pretty much very low carb), i opted not to bite off more than i could chew (so to speak, heh) - but now that i'm fairly acclimated, and it's pretty apparent the weight isn't going to just "melt off" i guess i'm ready to try to make an effort to lose the chub. goodbye, cream! hello, calorie-tracker and running shoes that haven't touched pavement since that stupid half-marathon last fall!

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on May 18, 2011
at 10:53 PM

The most dramatic effect that ZC has had on my health is in the realm of mood, not weight (though that was also significant), so just because someone doesn't have a weight problem, doesn't mean a ketogenic diet wouldn't be helpful. Anything brain/neurological is a strong candidate.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 18, 2011
at 06:23 PM

i'm non athletic, i've got about 25 extra lbs on me and 'gut issues'. so far i feel good, but i'm not losing weight. CW would reason i'm getting too many calories.. and that may be true... i might actually have to get off my ass and quit chugging heavy cream, alas.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 19, 2011
at 01:12 AM

i've thought about it plenny. yr right - i need to do it. plus for bone density, etc and a million other reasons.. lifting heavy stuff seems to be the ticket. not sure how to get started is the thing.. i'm brizzoke. actually wait.. i'm bullshitting! i need to start with MY OWN BODYWEIGHT. goddammit, duh. ok. no more excuses. i can't even do a proper chatturanga, honestly. it's embarrassing. but really, if i could join a crossfit, i would. thx for all the input - i appreciate! :)

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 19, 2011
at 01:37 PM

wow, never heard of a chaturanga before. I've only done bikram yoga and we never did that one. Doesn't look easy, I wouldnt beat myself up about not being able to do it. I think many would say Rippetoe's book/site is a good way to learn about the basic, compound, old timey lifts: http://startingstrength.com/ That being said, I think paying a good trainer to at least show you for a few months how to properly execute the movement Rippetoe teaches is worth it, if not wholly essential. Thats what I did since at 31 years of age lifting heavy stuff was totally new to me.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on May 19, 2011
at 05:40 PM

i wasn't joking about being broke, unfortch, so trainers and barbells and suchlike are out. being poor is a crappy excuse for being UNFIT tho. prolly i just gotta get into some old-timey living-room calisthenics. how unglamorous.

2
D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on May 17, 2011
at 10:45 PM

"I don't think fat is inherently unhealthy, and I don't think saturated fat is unhealthy. I said "if anything" because I think there's still a lot of uncertainty. I'm not condemning fat or high-fat diets. A person can probably be perfectly healthy on a high fat diet if it's designed well. However, I think most of our ancestors have probably been eating more carb than fat for a very long time, so my default stance at this point is that if you're going to bias your diet toward a macronutrient, I'd go for carb." - Stephan from the comments.

796d2266c54ffe57bf43a00b4315b747

(44)

on May 17, 2011
at 10:58 PM

what your "probably" not adding to your "stance" is, 1. The amount of fat the consumed does not affect diabetes risk. 2. the yo-yo effects that high glycemic-index carbohydrates have on blood glucose, which can stimulate fat production and inflammation, increase overall caloric intake and lower insulin sensitivity.

2
667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 17, 2011
at 10:44 PM

With three points it's difficult to only agree or disagree with him. I'd say points one and two are not wrong. Point three is dependent upon the individual. Some peoe find great satiety from foods that also happen to have large insulin responses. But the big thing many people forget is that THAT'S FINE IF YOUR HEALTHY. I eat white or sweet potatoes with every meal. My insulin probably goes up from that. But that's fine, I'm fit and active. Insulin is in our bodies exactly for that reason!

For point one, again if you're lean and healthy a carb-heavy diet is great! I'm on it, most anyone who is interested in athletic performance is on one. That does not mean grains, it just means carbohydrate. Tubers.

For point two maybe he means our ancestors of more recent generations. Yes during ice ages etc maybe fat and protein were the leaders but I'm sure for 50, 60 thousand or so years tubers have played a huge role. Perhaps outweighing fat. The fat attached to meat yes of course was always eaten but that's it. No olive oils, no macadamia nut oils, no coconut oils. So perhaps carbohydrate played a larger role for a longer time than many pale eaters think.

91219405abedbfd400ce00dea242a00f

(1044)

on May 17, 2011
at 11:05 PM

I'm confused. If you agree that point 1 is correct (a diet based in carbs is superior to a diet based in fat) then why are you eating paleo?

D5cde8031564f905260ce9aa7a1f5e2c

(1170)

on May 17, 2011
at 11:32 PM

Alex, paleo needn't be high-fat. It seems to work the best for most, but not everyone. As long as you stick to paleo carb sources (as Ben mentions, carb "does not mean grains"), higher carb should, and apparently does, work.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:49 PM

Grok has a good point. I myself would think LC does better generally with T2. But those in the raw community have many anecdotal stories about curing, or at least addressing well, T2. I watched this years ago: http://www.rawfor30days.com/index4.html I'm not a follower but noone can deny that it works for people. once again I think we see its about the EXCLUSION of poisons, rather than necessarily the INCLUSION of certain foods (be those foods paleo or not). Bottom line: eat less processed fake food, perhaps?

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:28 AM

Stephan might have just been referring to athletic folk or just normal folk. They all do fine on high carb. In fact it is only the metabolically deranged and sickly that would require special addressing. Yes they will prolly do better with LC but that is for a specific reason. The majority of healthy individuals need not go LC. If they would stop eating deleterious foods like grains, legumes, and dairy they would be better. I think people with a specific goal like weight loss too often come to the paleo thing and think their particular approach to paleo is what is for everyone.

91219405abedbfd400ce00dea242a00f

(1044)

on May 18, 2011
at 03:41 AM

Quite the opposite, Ben. I don't think ANY particular approach is for everyone. This is why I don't subscribe to generalizations ("such as high carb is better than high fat") As I stated in my previous post, I think that everyone should tailor their diet to themselves.

3c6b4eed18dc57f746755b698426e7c8

(5152)

on May 17, 2011
at 11:24 PM

It is correct insofar as your metabolism isn't wrecked. Mine is with diabetes. Once you have diabetes, it's another story: BG control is paramount. If I didn't have diabetes, however, my Paleo diet would primarily consist of safe starches: white rice, yams, sweet potatoes, yuca, etc. Right now, I introduce safe starches occasionally to ease my constipation from doing Low Carb. As I have said, however, I have not found a solution for my constipation.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 17, 2011
at 11:41 PM

Exactly. Since when has paleo been about macronutrients bias? Never. It's always and simply been about eating quality whole foods and avoiding THREE things: grains, legumes, and dairy. It has NEVER been about low-carb or anything related. Cordain even made a book Paleo Diet for Athletes that is essentially ALL about eating carbs to fuel sport. Don't confuse weight-loss strategies with ways of eating that simply focus on quality and non-deleterious things.

91219405abedbfd400ce00dea242a00f

(1044)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:50 AM

Yes, I understand where you're going with that but Stephan's post did not specify that he was talking about athletes nor did he talk about any specific carbohydrate sources. I understand that ancient people did not all necessarily eat low carbohydrate, but I'm referring to "Paleo" as the set of principles that promote optimum health. From my own experience and from many others, I feel worse when I eat high carb. Then again, I'm not a serious athlete, and I think everyone should tailor their diet to themselves.

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on May 18, 2011
at 07:18 AM

from my reading of all the posts on this forum it is apparent that followers are a disparate group, who are each trying to obtain some benefit from this lifestyle, according to where they start from on that quest - from 'jacked' athletes to diabetics - each require a different approach

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:24 AM

Alex, paleo isn't necessarily low carb. Kitavans are "paleo", as are the inuit. Paleo is used mainly as a framework to avoid toxic foods like wheat, vegetable oils, soy, and fructose.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:19 PM

I believe Alex brings up a great point with the comment that starts with "What I believe...". Stephan does in fact make a pretty broad generalization that probably a better default diet for most should lean toward higher carbs than fat. From everything I've observed, including many many testimonials and my own personal experience, I cannot say that I could, at this point, confidently support that a carb based diet is a better choice for most vs a more fat based diet with moderate amounts of protein and healthy carbs.

91219405abedbfd400ce00dea242a00f

(1044)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:53 AM

What I believe this post is falsely promoting is that everyone would do better with a high carbohydrate diet (not just athletes) rather than a high fat diet. This is simply not true as shown countless times through experiences of people on this website or others. If someone with morbid obesity or metabolic syndrome were to read that post, they may be strayed away from what they actually need to do to reduce their weight and become healthier. The post did not specify the target group, and made broad generalizations.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on May 18, 2011
at 07:54 AM

Alex, you've kind of missed the boat. Namby Pamby, T2 is cured with high carb diets every day (google Robby Barbaro) you don't have to settle. If you still want to be low-carb eat more veggies.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on May 19, 2011
at 01:49 PM

I agree with you jack. High fat does a lot of good for many people. I just kind of see it as medicine, as in its really good for dysfunctional people to heal themselves with. Its also good for inactive folk who just wanna live well and generally healthily. But I think as soon as you have a default healthy human being who is most likely going to want to engage in some kind of strenuous activity at least recreationally, a carb-based, or at least a diet higher in carb than fat, is going to serve them well. not essential, no. but i do think they will look, feel, perform better if you will.

1
6e01c5e248d6a30bb7cb07d536aaf5b6

(193)

on May 17, 2011
at 10:54 PM

His post on this topic doesn't seem very clear at all. I know he is a good scientist, but I prefer when writers are more clear and cogent. Maybe Mark Sisson can sum things up in a post using his gifted writing style.

Stephan doesn't distinguish between what kind of carbohydrates, and seems to think that most grains are ok if they are prepared properly, but who has time to traditionally soak and ferment grains? 99% of the wheat you will encounter is not going to be prepared in a traditional manner, even then it is probably a much different kind of wheat than was used a hundred years or three hundred years ago.

Is he talking about carbs from onions, sweet potatoes, yam, taro, beets, etc..?

What about fruit high in fructose like watermelon, mango, bananas?

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:22 AM

I doubt he is talking about basing one's diet off of gluten grains or fruits given his past posts.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on May 18, 2011
at 07:57 AM

What about them? Please mail all the watermelons, mangoes, and bananas you can find to me. I need fuel for a rocket engine.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18472)

on May 18, 2011
at 02:27 PM

I will never doubt your sarcasm Thomas.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on May 18, 2011
at 11:08 AM

I just ate some watermelon for my breakfast :)

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on May 18, 2011
at 06:03 PM

After seveal hours I appear to still be alive :) although I may now have several watermelon seedlings growing in my stomach.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:42 PM

Matthew, if you like, I can arrange for an ambulance to come to your house and take you to the hospital to have your stomach pumped.

4e184df9c1ed38f61febc5d6cf031921

(5005)

on May 18, 2011
at 06:53 AM

He is quite specific - he believes "that a diet based mainly on freshly cooked starchy tubers such as potatoes and sweet potatoes is probably superior to one based mostly on grains for most people." Last paragraph. How could that be clearer?

0
C674d43f8ce2a0fb93470a33eeca51ae

on July 09, 2011
at 06:32 AM

As many have pointed out, there exist examples of whole peoples thriving on higher-carb such as the Kitavans. I don't doubt this for a second. Of course they didn't/don't consume grains or any appreciable amount of refined sugars. The thing for me though, is that the evidence which shows that other cultures thrived with practically zero carbs is also compelling. (Ie: Inuit).

I just feel that any kind of carb is simply not necessary. To me they are fillers. I do eat vegetables and nuts so that I don't look 'weird'. (I cut out milk, but not cheese and heavy cream, but am sad to say they will most likely have to go as I do believe I am still having problems with them. BOO!) I think that potatoes and root vegetables are fine and won't cause harm, so I don't mind eating those if I feel so inclined. (I just don't have a craving for them).

I do agree that grains, soy, corn and legumes and of course sugar are complete JUNK! *Note: Soaking and fermenting grains is a complete waste of time, and honestly tastes like crap. I rather eat refined white bread b/c it at least 'tastes' good. (I don't, b/c I stay away from gluten). Same goes for rice. Why bother with 'brown rice'? It tastes like card-board!

Finally, despite using a flawed logic here, saying "Well, for me personally," I am quite content eating a high-fat, moderate protein, and low carb diet for these reasons:

a) major digestive issues b) improved health of my skin (this is why I will have to give up cheese and cream? Despite improvements in dryness, I still have a rash that's not going away). c) More energy: As a person who trains in karate, I have noticed an INCREASE in endurance. I don't feel that panting out of breath, hunching over b/c I feel so winded.
d) I believe in the proponents on neurological health that is remedied by ketogenic diets. (I personally don't suffer from epilepsy or anything like that, but I feel like such a diet helps with overall brain function; no more mental fog, no headaches etc). d) As a woman, greatly reduced PMS, as well as better health during menstral cycle. e) Satiety/enjoy the foods I'm eating. I actually enjoy what I'm eating for the first time in my life. I don't feel 'starving' all the time, which is nice.

*Note: Weight-loss has nothing to do with this. You could consider me one of those 'eat anything and not get fat'. But honestly, at what price? I just prefer feeling good. It gets old real fast 'bragging' that you can eat x amount of chips, pop and ice cream. (Er, rather other people would always comment to me instead of me 'bragging'). *I'm not saying that I lived on chips, pop and candy. A typical day would have been: bagal w/ slathered butter or cream cheese: sometimes eggs, bacon and toast: or generic cereal. Lunch would be jamaican patty, or chicken burger of course with bread/bun. Dinner would have been chicken/beef/pork/fish, rice/potatoes, and some type of veggies. For beverages I drank water, milk, sometimes mango juice, sometimes coconut water. I would have desserts sometimes such as ice cream, some type of pie or cake etc. I really don't think this is that extraordinary compared to what a lot of people eat. Yet I was experiencing all kinds of problems. What? But hey, I was slim right? I worked out right? Of COURSE I was healthy...NOT! *Btw, I'm only mid-20s...

Anyways, what was supposed to be a quick post turned out to be a 'thesis'. I've given more than my 2¢, so I'm off and everyone enjoy the foods that they feel most comfortable eating!

p.s. I honestly didn't enjoy eating before. It felt like a chore, yet I felt addicted to certain foods (yet didn't feel like eating at the same time, weird). *I was addicted to pop for about a year, but forced myself to stop. This was several months before switching to high-fat etc. Mostly I ate because I felt I had to, to get nutrients and the fact I didn't want to be anorexic or anything like that. I enjoy eating now! The food tastes wonderful! I don't feel addicted and when I'm full, I don't feel physical discomfort.

0
C0fb17636e18784b9770c850755ae52e

on May 19, 2011
at 12:56 PM

It's all good stuff for discussion.

0
F6ea948ab43dc51d72509c0989e670fe

(1639)

on May 17, 2011
at 10:10 PM

I'll disagree. Well, at least if I want to be healthy, strong and avoid all of the main points of disease based on an agriculture diet. Though it sounds like he wants to cause contention more than anything else.

  1. So what about the masai, or the intuit? I'm not saying I eat that way with those specifics in terms of ratios, but they avoided the perils of civilization based diseases with a high fat/moderate protein diet.

  2. I think there is a case for a possibility of a high-carb diet being okay, but it's definitely not based around grains. Tubers or rice would be about the only two I would consider (at least in my case). I just think that the rising rates of celiac disease in Italy showcase that our grain based society is going to work long term (not to mention the ridiculous amount of obesity in America).

  3. Um, why? Spiking insulin is bad. It causes fat storage. I don't want fat storage! Worst of all, they cause me to be hungry. If I eat a high fat/moderate protein/moderate-to-low carb (low on glycemic index) I'm at least not hungry. Reduce insulin levels, restore proper leptin balance, and ignore the foods that have been genetically modified to be super sweet.

3eafb88d6a6d762fcfa8ed4eb0576260

(642)

on May 17, 2011
at 11:47 PM

The Masai diet, being full of lactose-rich milk, is high-carb.

B485f0cf678c0b420941e883adfea28d

(304)

on May 18, 2011
at 12:22 AM

1. Examples prove nothing. There are plenty of examples of both. Kitavans for the high-carb side. 2. He's not making the case for processed high-carb foods which is the issue with Italy and America. He's advocating Roots and tubers and properly prepared grains. 3. Spiking insulin is not necessarily bad. Chronic high fasted insulin levels are but it's not clear that regular insulin spikes lead to this metabolic derangement

F6ea948ab43dc51d72509c0989e670fe

(1639)

on May 17, 2011
at 10:19 PM

What's funny is that I see the comments on 'the whole health source' discussing this as well, and wondering about it. I've read his stuff before, and like his opinions (for the most part). Guess we can disagree on this one though...

02736efa3fda31740e8890eed0cb663d

(1813)

on May 18, 2011
at 05:44 AM

1 and 2 are arguing against things that Stephan didn't say. I think 3 is not as well supported as you imply. There are people that have lived well on high-glycemic-index foods, such as potatoes.

F6ea948ab43dc51d72509c0989e670fe

(1639)

on May 17, 2011
at 10:18 PM

What's funny is that I see the comments on the site discussing this as well, and wondering about it. I've read the site before, and like his opinions (for the most part). Guess we can disagree on this one though...

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:06 PM

The Masai diet is NOT high-carb, unless getting 60% of your calories from fat makes you high-carb somehow. It contains carbohydrate, obviously, but to call it high-carb is pretty bizarre and would render such labels meaningless. It's at best moderate carb, probably even on the low side relative to SAD.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:04 AM

Good point Mike Jones.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7304)

on May 18, 2011
at 01:21 AM

re #1, just because they avoided the diseases of civilization doesn't mean they were in optimal health. And optimal, I believe, is what he is referring to. I agree on 2. On 3 though, insulin causes fat, but theoretically it should drop down in between meals or overnight or during fasts enough to burn the fat back off. The problem comes when it is chronically elevated, not when it is occasionally spiked.

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on May 19, 2011
at 08:46 PM

OMG....if you people think that 'insulin spikes' cause fat gain you really have more reading to do...

796d2266c54ffe57bf43a00b4315b747

(44)

on May 25, 2011
at 12:34 AM

what is it with EVERYONE having such a hard time giving up grains? THEY ARE NOT GOOD FOR YOU. do the research and stop following guru's with clay feet.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!