I'm saying damage is cumulative - many people come to a low carb diet due to existing health problems. Whereas many will turn to macrobiotics, or vegetarianism to try to continue existing good health or due to ethical or spiritual issues, rather than than from a starting point of bad health.

For instance, someone struggles with obesity from teen years, high blood pressure from 20's, gets diabetes in late 30's and finds low carb aged 50. Another person has no weight problems, enjoys sport, keeps active, no health problems and aged 50 finds macrobiotics. Come aged 60, which of the two of them is more likely to be alive? Can 10 years of a good Lc diet overcome the health damage of following SAD with problematic genes up to aged 50. Can a high carb, low calorie macrobiotic diet do a lot of damage to a reasonably healthy body in 10 years?

Its a healthy user effect. But take two 50 year olds with cancer and feed one a ketogenic diet and one a macrobiotic diet (along with conventional therapies) - who will do better. From the most recent research, I would put my money on the ketogenic diet.

Lee

I am still obese, but I've lost 100 pounds since 2003, and mostly kept it off. I went from 363 at my biggest to my current 259. Am I a failure? A success?

I know people who did Weight Watchers and have yo-yo'd in that time a few times. Some are worse off than they were at that point. I am 48 (a month from 49) years old. How many people weigh 100 pounds less at 49 than at 40?

I'm not saying I have been perfect at LC. I haven't. But I've managed to keep most of my weightloss.

Don't vegetarians often diet that way not to lose weight, but for ethical and philosophical reasons? I know a LOT of low carbers. I know none who did it for philosophical reasons. I know none who were not obese when they started.

I guess I'm not as well off as someone who was never all that fat, or not fat at all, but who lost a few pounds and got healthier through another diet plan. Personally I think a relatively thin person bragging about not being fat is kind of like a tall person bragging about being tall, or a genius telling everyone that if they applied themselves, they could be just as smart.

Truth in advertising, though. I know a couple of people who have had longterm success with WW. I know several who couldn't make LC work.

But yeah, if you are Jimmy Moore or someone like him and you started very fat, you may be fatter than someone who never was. I certainly fit that description - fatter than many around me, less fat than I was, and that way for almost a decade.

That's not necessarily true. These days there are a lot of young, very fit people doing paleo along with Crossfit, bodybuilding, etc. And not only young people - Mark Sisson comes to mind. I don't think he was ever fat.

And, while many people do choose veganism for ethical reasons, I'd say the great majority do it for weightloss or health problems. McDougall, Esselstyn, Fuhrman - their focus is on health and weight and their testimonials are all from people who were obese or sick. "Skinny Bitch" is a best-selling vegan weightloss book. Look around the internet - there are a LOT of people turning to a plant-based diet because of heart disease or cancer. Bill Clinton comes to mind.

Yes the paleo movement does attract already healthy people, but also unhealthy people.

In the US there may be a growing veganism/vegetarianism movement for health, but not so much in the UK (well, maybe in the upper middle classes, but who knows what's trendy with them right now).

Anyway that wasn't really my point - my point was that damage from previous bad diet cannot always be easily overcome by a short period on a good diet. Just as the health that someone has had for many years is hard to ruin quickly with a poor diet. damage can take time to build up and takes time to repair. Of course there are always things that can improve quickly with good diet - autoimmune issues, for instance. If a person dies while on a certain diet, blaming the diet may be unhelpful.

Lee

I just had a quick look at that clip and quite frankly, regardless of size, I thought all the vegans looked ill and unhealthy - sunken eyes and sallow skin!

I'll stick with what I'm doing

Jo xxx

I just re-watched the video that started this discussion. This is a pretty long thread. I can't recall whether anybody's asked this--but have any of the skinny vegetarian diet advocates in the video ever had a weight problem?

Mark Sisson's been mentioned on this page. How about Ron Rosedale? Richard Bernstein? Robb Wolfe? Gary Taubes? Peter G-something at Hyperlipid? Dr Briffa's head never looked all that fat to me. Peter Attia. I don't believe Jeff Volek or Stephen Phinney or Eric Westman are fat. Kurt Harris isn't a low carb advocate anymore. But being one didn't make him fat. If you go to Jimmy Moore's podcast and just go through the archives, look at all the people, some are chunkier than they probably want to be, true--but this vegan propaganda video is shown to be just that--at least the half of it that says that low carbers are just a bunch of pudgy liars. There's just no shortage of lean low carb advocates. C'mon.

I have no doubt that a low fat vegan diet will cause fat loss in a lot of cases. Go low fat enough, and I think you come up against a limit of an individual's ability to synthesize enough fat to remain in positive fat balance. Maybe even in most cases. But if you can't come up with fat plant-based diet advocates, you're just not trying hard enough.

Edited to add; as long as Sally Fallon's in the discussion, let's throw in her co-author, Mary Enig. Not fat.

I think it's still all about calorie restriction. If you can hit your RDAs and stay within a restricted calorie range doing vegan, vegetarian, or low carb, then it's all good.

A calorie deficit doesn't have to be calorie restriction. You could also eat more and exercise more. (the high energy flux idea)

Some people need to eat and exercise differently to get a deficit that pulls from stored fat.

The metabolic slowdown from excess calorie restriction is real. It's not much of a slowdown, but it's there.

Nothing wrong with a slower metabolism. It's been linked to physiological benefits over time.

Well, you can see how even if otherwise beneficial, a slower metabolism might interfere with weight loss. I don't think you can assume it is beneficial though, in all cases. If your metabolism is low, but you're bursting with energy, that's one thing. Nothing wrong necessarily with being more efficient. Some people's metabolisms slow down, and then they have trouble even getting out of bed.

The Drs. Eades admitted in their Middle aged middle book that they had gotten careless. I would not like to look like the women from the plant based diet books. Plus, I don't consider Barry Sears to be a true LC diet promoter.

They didn't show Mark Sisson, either.

Thanks for reminding me that both vegan health eaters and LC eaters avoid sugar. They also both avoid manufactured foods. The main difference other than meat is the vegan's demonization of saturated fats.

Julianne from Paleo & Zone Nutrition posted this blog post recently:

Raw Vegan, Blood Type O and the Paleo Diet – what do they have in common?

I think it's rather appropriate to the discussion in this thread.

Peter Attia was kind of pudgy before low carb. Now he's sleek.