Ok, to try to make this short and to the point, if carbs are the devil, why do we see things like this book with 500+ reviews mostly positive where Carbs are presented as the saviour and fats are being vilified!? http://www.amazon.com/The-Starch-So...yRankDescending

Let me clarify, I'm a devout (although fairly new) follower of the LCHF lifestyle... heck, I've lost close to 30 pounds already, lowered my Triglycerides, and my cholesterol numbers are improving steadily!

So, why are there still so many people, apparently with personal testimonies of going HCLF, losing weight and improving their cholesterol numbers!?

Which is it!? LCHF or HCLF??

Ultimately, all I care about is to find the truth, scientific truth, whatever this is! But seeing so many positive testimonies regarding LCHF, myself included, while at the same time also seeing equally positive testimonies but on a diet that is directly opposite in many ways... is too confusing!! If these testimonies in favor of HCLF are true, there must be some scientific explanation out there in this regard, wouldn't you think?
Do you guys have any thoughts about this?

I'm leaning towards LCHF because in the past I've tried the conventional LF diets and none of them really worked, although initially they seemed like they would work. It was only going LCHF that I finally managed to show real and dramatic results in my life... But, being the honest person I'm always aiming to be, I can't just close my eyes to these apparently great results from the HCLF defenders. My brain suffers desperately in need of an explanation!

Any ideas!?
Thank you!!

I'm pretty sure LCHF works best in those with metabolic syndrome. Those without, seem to do well as vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores. Just my personal observation.

I'm pretty sure we've got better indicators of reality than reviews on Amazon.com. :\ Maybe start reading some of the scientific literature than people's subjective impressions that are biased by all kinds of things.

I've become very suspicious of reviews since buying a few things/using services that I'm fairly certain had padded their reviews by friends, etc.

Low fat works for some people and will never work for others. The way I see it - some people run fine on regular gas (the standard American diet), some require premium gas (a balanced diet - avoid excessive junk food), and some people require diesel fuel (LCHF). I run on diesel. I've never tolerated sugar well. I've been heavy or struggling with weight all my life. When I started fueling my body the way that works best for me, I started running like a hot rod. If you put too much sugar in my tank, I run like crap. Society wants to blame me. I blame the food. The truth is, some people tolerate sugar better than others. Sugar (and starch is a sugar) is a great fuel source for some. For me, I don't get energy from sugar - I get fat storage. Eating LCHF, on the other hand, I have energy and I lose weight. I would not be successful on that "Eat Starch" diet, but I'm sure that others would do fine. People are different. There are different 'right' answers to losing weight and staying healthy. I happen to think that more people would do better with less sugar and a better ratio of fat and protein than the typical low fat diet prescribes. But the low fat diet has been the recommended diet of choice for so long and promoted as if it is a one-size-fits-all solution. It is not.

Why does it have to be one or the other? One doesn't have to be false for the other to be true. It can be true that fat is fattening in a certain context, and carbohydrate is fattening in a certain context--but in some other context, not fattening. I'd say that a potato fried in butter is potentially fattening, more fattening than a plain baked potato. But the butter itself, in the context of a ketogenic diet--not fattening.

Besides what gonwtwindo said about metabolic syndrome, there's other differences in individual metabolism that could have an effect. Some people might be better at making fat from glucose for instance--a person with a low de novo lipogenesis capacity might have trouble staying in a positive fat balance if fat intake is very very low, they might not be able to produce fat quickly enough to remain overweight. There are also interactions between protein, carbohydrate and fat. Very low carbohydrate, ketogenic diets will give the lowest insulin levels. But at the same time, it's possible to increase the carbohydrate percentage of a meal, and greatly decrease the fat, and end up with a meal that's less insulinogenic--even though fat, which by itself wouldn't increase insulin, is replaced by carbohydrate which by itself would. This can also be true of fasting insulin, a low fat diet in mice and rats will very often result in lower fasting insulin levels than if they're fed a higher fat diet. That seems to depend on omega 6 fatty acids, though. A high fat diet that has 8 percent omega 6 linoleic acid makes the animals fat, but at 1 percent linoleic acid, it doesn't. That's another factor in a very strict McDougall/Ornish style diet, extremely low levels of omega 6 fatty acids.

I did Eat to Win, a very low fat diet in my teens. I think that was the worst time I could have chosen to do it, I did great damage to my teeth. Later I did similar diets and seemed to get away with it, I think the greater mineral demands of adolescence made the diet deficient.

Sergidave…exactly..there is no reason that LCHF can't work for you, and me, and millions with some more added weight or metabolic issues…while OTHERS at different ages and medical conditions can do well on High carb, LF…. BUT we live in a nation with such hippocracy of "honor diversity" only cultural of course.

But on the first level we LCers much fight the CICO fascists..their way or the highway..well I am not a bunsen burner, and heating up some fat to prove kilocalories has ZERO to do with my body and losing weight.

Second if you can get past the CICO crowd you deal with FAD crowd.

Pointing to any other diet book as the right idea for ALL..why? What happened to diversity for all?

Even down to the discussion today about ketogenic diet for epileptics. (Meryl Streep as the mom of an epileptic boy on a vilified ketogenic diet that saved his life: First Do No Harm shows how bad the medical team was at helping him.

I took a lot of strength from watching Dallas Buyers Club, and the main character's way to bring HIV meds to desperate patients by subverting the 'sell pills' illegally way …he found a solution that helped many. And he ignored the stupidity of common beliefs, and the rigid medical system to save his life a little longer, and those of others.

Dr. Herring of the FAST 5 IF fame, which has had success for a decade says we must ALL be our own N=1..if it works for us, we continue.

Guys, you are awesome. Thank you for clarifying for me that this is not a one-size-fit- everybody type of thing. The matter is way more complex than the majority of us think. The danger for both sides of the discussion is to think that the truth must forcefully lie at only ONE side of the coin, which clearly is not the case. All our bodies are different from one to the next, with metabolisms that can handle what we eat in different ways. I definitively have a ton of things to learn, which I welcome happily. Thank you all for your input!

When Christopher Gardner, researcher of the famous A to Z diet study, went back through his data, he found those women who were most insulin resistant did better on a low carb diet, and those who were more insensitive did better on a low fat diet. http://www.nutritionaction.com/dail...-gain-and-loss/

If you want a good short explanation of IR, watch this 18 minute TedTalk. http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=467437

Most people can guess they are insulin resistant if they are overweight and have larger waist size.

There's an interview on Youtube with Dr. McDougall, author of The Starch Solution, and Dr. Atkins. Dr. McDougall is clearly trying to bait Dr. Atkins, and lead him down the garden path in hopes of a "gotcha!' moment, but Dr. Atkins doesn't take the bait. He sees to be very open and sincere, and even says to McDougall at one point (paraphrasing, because I watched this video a long time ago), "I was just saying to my wife, isn't it amazing that we can get the same results with two completely different approaches!"

It's worth a listen. Just be forwarned that the jerk who uploaded the video photoshopped Dr. Atkins' head onto the body of a morbidly obese person.

Ah, if McDougall had consulted the collective knowledge on this forum, he would learn that his dietary protocol does not work for all, as many have stated. The vegan lifestyle has its shortcomings for many who have tried it. For those of us with metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance, following the plan McDougall recommends is extremely difficult to sustain. To sell books though, one has to be authoritative and pose their method as the solution for everyone. He's a glib speaker and is very convincing to those who have no background knowledge.

I saw a friend yesterday that I have not seen in three or four months. It made me think of this thread, because he has lost 34 pounds. I asked him how, and he said he eats the following:

1 fruit when he wakes up.
Three more fruits before lunch.
One healthy choice frozen meal for lunch.
Two more fruits in the afternoon.
Bowl of oatmeal for dinner.
Popcorn or peanuts for a snack in the evening.

I'm thinking he is losing on low calories. His cholesterol is high and his doctor wants him to lose 40 lbs via very low fat, high fiber.

How's that for craziness?

That's absolute craziness, and if he sustains this for any length of time, malnutrition is in his future. Sad part, losing the 40 lbs is not going to change his cholesterol readings, but his triglycerides will likely be very high, which is the more important biomarker.

DUH. Forgot to include the link! Sorry.

https://youtu.be/PBi2VABLNb0

LCHF is best for health. Is it possible the opposite is equally good for health? Unlikely. LCHF excludes its opposite by definition.

Is this just my opinion? No. It's shown by experiments: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=456041

In those experiments, LCHF was compared against opposites of various degrees. McD's book looks like the opposite of LCHF, therefore is likely to produce equally mediocre results as those opposites in those experiments. Why do I say "likely" and not "certain"? Because McD's book has not been tested by experiment. We don't know what McD's book will do.