I read an article recently that included the following statement:

"The theory is that carbohydrates raise blood sugar levels, which then kicks in insulin. Insulin drives blood sugar into the cells and prevents fat breakdown in the body, so you won't burn excess fat and lose weight.

Proponents of low-carb diets take this one step further. They say that if carbohydrates raise blood sugar and insulin levels and cause weight gain, a decrease in carbs will result in lower blood sugar and insulin levels, leading to weight loss. And because you're not eating the carbs, your body breaks down fat to provide needed energy. Some people do lose weight on low-carb diets, but the weight loss probably isn't related to blood sugar and insulin levels to any extent."

I thought the sugar/insulin levels weren't a theory. I thought sugar did affect insulin levels and weight gain.

The article at: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/low-carb-diet/NU00279
seems to suggest low carb diets are about as useful as any other diet...nothing special. Am I understanding this right, his reasoning why low carb diets work seems so oversimplified missing important information.

Any comments appreciated!

Wyatt

Yummmm mayo.

Of course not. I, for example, have lost over 100 lbs, but it's just water weight.

Proof that you can be a dumb s*** and a doctor at the same time.

For people whose fat-regulation system works normally, I would imagine low carb and low-fat/low-calorie diets would work equally well but then they wouldn't really need a diet to begin with. For those of us who are insulin resistant, it's a whole other matter. Our system of regulating fat distribution and energy availability is screwed up. Insulin is pumped out in much larger amounts because our insulin receptors in all but our fat cells have become resistant, so our body produces more insulin. This increase in insulin just causes the non-resistant fat cells to be provided with a bonanza of fat to add to our stores, while our muscles are deprived. So, low-fat would not work nearly so well, especially since low-fat inevitably means high-carb.

We're not all the same. Some bodies work better than they're supposed to, others can't handle the massive amounts of easily-digested carbs in the standard diet and then break down. To lump us all together is highly simplistic at best, criminally negligent at worst.

Plane
Read Good Calories Bad Calories for a better and fuller explanation of what happens.

I think most of us here are living proof that makes this false. I did a calorie restricted diet for 8 months. I counted everything I ate and made sure I stayed below my limit, eating mostly tasteless food that would fill up my hamster. I did lose weight though but it took me 8 months to lose 18 lbs. and then started gaining it back. Now I've lost 15 lbs. in 7 weeks on modified South Beach.

Also, I notice there is no mention of the level of carbs that makes the doctor say that lowcarbing is "about the same" as a lowfat diet in terms of longevity (how many people stick with it, that is). One thing that always annoys the crap out of me is that people here "lowcarb" and think right away of Atkins Induction level carbs, which we all know was never intended to be long-term and which many people don't even begin with if they're doing another plan or their own plan. For some people, 20 carbs would be tough to stay on for a very long period of time and certainly not for life, but that doesn't mean that a relatively low level of carbs (relative to the SAD, not relative to lowcarb levels ) isn't possible, especially since so many of us come off of the "diet" part of lowcarbing teaches us to stay away from the "bad" carbs and stick with the good carbs.

For myself, I've done so many diets, ever since I was 14 years old, and lowcarbing was the only one that I stuck with until I reached goal and was happy with. I say "was" because I've been off for a year and a half and the proof is in the pudding - i.e., gained half of what I lost.

Which is why I'm returning to lowcarbing, though not Atkins Induction level carbs, as of tomorrow...

Tam

Right on! The "best and the brightest" sometimes lack common sense. A TCM practitioner I once worked with had a great quote, to the effect that self-selection means that most doctors are people who are (0nly) slightly smarter than average (and average isn't very smart) who want to make a lot of money.

Places like Mayo, Cleveland Clinic etc are state of the art and cutting edge on many things (eg advanced surgeries) but by virtue of their size they also are very linked to mainstream, alphabet agency dogma on things like diet.

The idea that LC diet weight loss is mostly "water weight" (granted some is initially but that dioesn't explain longer term) is as out-dated as the exploding kidneys myth.

You must be very dehydrated.

Ain't that the truth

hey ya'll

I wish I could respond to all of you individually to say thanks for the great responses and humor. I have really enjoyed reading all of what you wrote!

I; like many people who put weight on easily love to eat...and love to eat ice cream, chococlate chip cookies, good chips and salsa etc.

I went to lunch today and somehow avoided the chips and salsa at my favorite Mexican resturaunt and am so happy I did.

It is just like smoking cigarettes...I love to smoke but don't want to because it is not good for me and I don't like to feel like I need to do something to feel good.

Thanks for confirming what I thought was a good direction for myself in the low carbing lifestyle!

Sincerely, Wyatt

This doctor has a book to sell (The Mayo Clinic Diet...) so he is certainly not going to push LC diets... Anyway, all of his assumptions do not consider the studies that are coming out day after day about the benefits of LC but are just a resume of what HE thinks is good. Bad science...

when i first got serious about losing weight, i did the WW points thing and worked out an hour a day, 6 days a week. in the first 10 days, i lost 5lbs. in the next 3 months, i lost absolutely nothing. in fact, those 5lbs started to creep back on. about the only thing that changed was my muscle tone got better due to all the cardio i was doing.

i knew something was wrong but nobody could tell me what. but the minute i switched to low-carb, weight started melting off me. that alone tells me there IS a huge difference between the two eating plans, and that the same diet doesn't work the same way for everyone.

eating this way does help give me control and the ability to lose weight.

I am tempted at times by eating something with the bad carbs but for the most part if I just eat low carb I do really well energy wise and weight wise.

I am somewhat concerned about all the fat during the induction phase and the fact that I may need to stay more toward the protein/fat side than the carb side...(good or bad) and still feel good.

bye the way...I love your Bio!

It's a theory the way gravity is a theory: Understood but not proven. Doctors shouldn't respond to every idiotic theory that a patient brings them. If they did, doctors would be prescribing urine injections for arthritis, bloodletting for schizophrenia. etc. Doctors are trained by older doctors who were trained by even older doctors. There are a few doctors, like Eades, who have broken ranks. But many more who haven't.

There is also the engrained rubric: You are fat because you eat too much of everything. Doctors are attacking the problem with things like stomach stapling because it's a surgery proven (no theory!) proven to work. We are approaching universal health care in the US. That means everyone gets to go the doctor for every symptom. Doctors parse their time for seriously ill more than for seriously overweight. And they should: You are fat because you eat too much of everything. Eat less, weigh less.

Taubes shows the history of how the US became stuck on the idea of 'eat less, weigh less'. If more doctors read his book, more doctors might recommend lowcarb diets. Maybe. Don't blame doctors unless you expect never to become ill yourself.