Even if one rejects the idea that grains and legumes contain toxins, foreign proteins, high levels of carbohydrate, and were never part of the diet in which humans evolved on, and are therefore not good for the human body, it would be hard to argue in favor of their consumption as the base of one's diet, as for instance the Food Pyramid suggests. The simple reason is that they have so little nutrient content, that one ends up filling up on mostly empty calories. These empty calories are displacing the caloric intake of more fruits and vegetables and meats, eggs, nuts and fat, which DO contain concentrated levels of known and unknown nutrients. If one truly wishes to eat a nutrient dense diet, to avoid excess calories, as the main-stream nutritionists tout, then why are grains and legumes and starchy tubers the base of these diets? If the answer is to produce necessary glycogen stores, so as to save muscle mass which would otherwise be broken down for necessary glucose, as many nutritionists will argue, then why not simply eat more fruits and vegetables? Of course, as is pointed out in Life Without Bread, the breakdown of muscle mass for the production of glucose, is a very natural thing, and will keep the production of insulin in check. Life Without Bread explains the dangers of the over production of the hormone insulin, which upsets the balance of other hormones in the body. By using muscle to provide necessary glucose to the blood stream, it is the bodies way to regulate the amount of glucose production, and consequently insulin production, during times of famine. During times of plenty of vegetation (summer months for example), the body had a mechanism to store fat for times of famine (winter months when plants would not bear food).

One could argue that we don't live in times of famine, and that because we always have plenty to eat, we should be eating some carbohydrate. That may be a valid argument. However, how much is enough? And, from what source should one get this carbohydrate? That, to me is the fundamental question. If one gets carbohydrates from fresh fruits and vegetables, then one will be eating a nutrient dense diet, while avoiding the excess consumption of carbohydrates that will lead to the over production of insulin, and the inevitable fat storage to follow, not to mention wrecking havoc on one's endocrine system.

Then there is the argument of "eating in season". How much should we be following a really unnecessary regiment? The book Lights Out tries to address this by stating that if we eat the same in all seasons, then our bodies will be living in a state of "endless summer" and our cortisol levels will be too high, thus promoting weight gain and a lot of other stress related illness, and we won't get enough melatonin production from sleeping in enough darkness, etc. Once again, the issue of proper eating goes beyond simply trying to lose and maintain weight and body fat. That is only an ancillary benefit to a much more fundamental effect on our overall health. The endocrine system is so vital to good health that why nutritionists don't focus more on that, and less on simple weight loss, is probably due more to the superficial desires of people to "look normal", etc. However, some people who "look normal" (have proper weight) are extremely sick, because they are eating a diet that is low in many nutrients that are necessary for optimal health, and some are exercising like crazy to maintain this look, and therefore putting undue stress on their system. Their endocrine system gets all messed up, as does their cardiovascular system. Lights Out addresses many of these issues and is a fabulous book that ties together many paleo concepts.

I would really like to hear from others who have arguments to what I am stating. Especially anyone who has had nutrition or physiology education. I have taken nutrition classes recently, and they still preach the same line of the Food Pyramid. It's like a broken record that won't stop skipping! Any discussion of these issues fell on deaf ears and was completely avoided. Looks of confusion on the instructor's face was a common response. Please help me clarify some of these issues. I got very confused in taking these classes, because there was so much "low-carb" bashing going on during the entire session that it was almost to the point of defensiveness on the part of the "nutritionists" doing the teaching. I would truly welcome a more informed discussion here on this forum, a rare place I might add in which to discuss these issues.

Thanks for any input.

If we don't live in times of famine, and we always have plenty to eat, shouldn't we be eating LESS carbohydrate? If it's no longer necessary to put on a layer of fat to survive winter?

Like Galileo trying to convice the church that the Earth revolved around sun, not the other way around, trying to get a nutritionist to evaluate the low carb health evidence is a losing proposition. Low-fat is the center of the nutritionist's world and all eating must revolve around it. It's a form of religion, not science.

I don't mean to be a pain, or sound confused...

but aren't veggies and fruit low fat?

I mean, if nutrionists are saying over and over to eat low fat, why push carbs (which are not nutrient dense) but instead push fruits and vegetables which are naturally low fat (aside from the obvious avocados, etc).

Maybe i'm too young (24) to know all about low fat diets and what not and maybe im too educated in the low carb way of eating, but it just seems like low fat does not NECESSARILY mean high glycemic pototoes and bread...

i think you COULD eat low fat and just eat more veggies and fruit and still be fine. (aside from the fact that fats are good for you)

That's quite true, Aetheana. I think when people say "low-fat" here they're talking about "low-fat/high-carb". Although some of us do low-fat/low-carb for caloric reasons.

I think if you don't get enough fat (and I'm talking animal fat) you will be in big trouble! For multiple reasons!

What you say is very sensible. I do agree. One thing, though, that we must watch out for, is not trying to "eat in season" then. Especially trying to avoid fruits and veggies in the winter time, just cuz they are "out of season". UNLESS of course one is eating lots of organs. What I am saying is there MUST be SOME way to get necessary vitamins and minerals. Either through low carb fruits and veggies, or through organs. I would love to work on eating more of the latter, myself. Does this make any sense, or am I missing something here?

A fruit and veggie diet would be unhealthy. While veggies are full of micronutrients (vitamins and minerals, etc.), they are low in energy (calories). Fruit on the other hand is reasonably low in micronutrients but heavy in sugars. The end result would be a diet that was very high in sugars and low in proteins and fats.

Yes you could eat low fat with more fruits and veggies and less carbs and still be fine.

Carbs while calorie dense don't have a lot of nutrients.

While it's true that fruits don't contain protein, neither do grains, at least not complete high quality protein.

There's nothing wrong with lean protein from meats. There's nothing wrong with a bit of saturated fat and fruit fats either.

You can reduce extra added fat and still have sufficient and the correct mix of fat in a low fat diet.

I don't understand why anyone would want to eat a "low-fat" diet? Fat (especially animal fat) is so vital to good health that it is very unhealthy to not eat enough of it. Fruits and veggies contain lots of nutrients. The sweeter fruit may contain too much sugar, and therefore should be eaten in lower amounts, but even these have good nutrients. Grains and legumes are the true "empty calories" that should be avoided when trying to lose weight (if not all the time, IMO).

Legumes are reasonbly low in calories, very high in fiber and protein, and contain a great deal of nutrition as minerals, folate, and anti-ox (the dark colored ruddy beans particularly). A serving of legumes is typically rather low carb as well (and low glycemic). If you are super carb sensitive you have to watch it but for most people if they ate more beans (and less of the rest of the junk they usually eat) they would be better for it. Perhaps not as good if they ate more low sugar fruits, veggies and meat/dairy but an improvement is still an improvement (beans > cakes, grains, sugar, etc).

I will never understand why people lump legumes with white death (most tubers and grains, and refined carbohydrate that is not real food). Perhaps because both are staple sources of caloric energy on traditional low fat diets, therefore, it is assumed both are the same? Even WHOLE grains (like oatmeal) can be good for you if you have a healthymetabolism, as part of a fat-adequate diet. I just don't like grains because they are so calorie dense and too high carb for my metabolism for the benefits (taste, eating satisfaction, and health).

BTW it is entirely possible to try to reduce fat and be eating a low carb diet. In fact the majority of us who are at goal have to watch calories (fats) in order to make it there. Very few (lucky people) can cruise to their goal eating whatever, even if carb free.

I'm with you on how great fats are, but just for an example, someone with gallbladder problems may have to watch their fat intake. And studies showed that the Ornish diet (really low in fat - 10% or something) reversed heart disease in some patients. I think it's possible that some of us can eat lots of fat, but some people can't - just like some people can snack on carbs all day long without an insulin uptick, but people on this site can't.


Just to be devil's advocate, there are people who are dedicated vegetarians/vegans for idealogical reasons. To get sufficient protein, they have to take care to combine certain foods - beans with grains are the classic example. The amino acid profile of beans combines well with the profile of grains to form a better total protein profile. Although I suppose they could just eat quinoa, if that stuff's any good.

Plus, being preggo, every so often I've craved hummus. Is that so terrible?

Good points, Woo. Lets compare equivalent amounts of canned kidney beans, baked potato with skin, and raw broccoli. I used the USDA database and compared them at 100 gram portions. While the beans and potato had equivalent calories (85 and 93 ), the broccoli was only 34 calories because of all the moisture it has. I multiplied the broccoli amounts by 2.5 to get the calories up to 85 for a fair comparison. None had significant amounts of fat so I left that out.


The beans and the broccoli are very similar (and I was surprized to see that broccoli has more proteins). So why do I limit my bean comsumption and not my broccoli?

Beans have various anti-nutrients (particularly lectins) that the human digestive system has trouble with. All plants have chemicals that help them survive by discouraging animals from eating them. During out evolutionary path, we developed digestive ways of handling those chemicals that allowed us to eat the plants (vegetables, greens, etc.) that were part of our diet. Humans have been eating beans for only a short period of time and we have not acquired the methods for handling the lectins. How harmful the lectins are is debatable, but I would rather error on the side of safety and eat more broccoli and less beans.

I did have some kidney beans yesterday, so I don't totally avoid them, I just limit them.

Here's a really interesting read about human evolution that discusses grains and legumes. It pokes a hole in what I said about how maybe some people can't handle fats, at least as a general evolutionary idea:

I still think there may be the rare person who has an injury that makes fats work less well for them. Still, this indicates that there's no reason to believe there are whole populations this way, or anything like that.

I was doing a Google search for "legumes primitive" to see how far back legumes go in our history. I love the beyondveg.com site, so when that popped up I jumped on it.

Incidentally it is kind of an amusing thought experiment to look at the veggie food-combining thing through the lens of evolution. They combine one food that humans can't digest well, with another food humans can't digest, to try to get enough protein to replace an easily-digested food that humans have always eaten. It is possible that some peoples have adapted pretty well to this, though.

Mind you, I don't have anything against vegetarians/vegans. I hope nobody's getting that idea.