Yes one can. I do agree that obesity is a symptom, and we overeat because we're getting fatter, not the other way around. But we can most definitely can and do eat ourselves into the diseases of the modern world.

Pollution probably plays a huge role. Dryer sheets probably do as well (I KNOW that sounds crazy, but there are xenoestrogens in dryer sheets that stay in our clothing and linens that we're in or on 24/7).

Wikipedia is awesome, isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_hypothesis

Three ways glucose causes cancer.

1. Glucose binds to protein thereby corrupting and damaging them. These molecules are called advanced glycation end-products (AGEs). When proteins are glycated, they don't function or function erratically. The enzyme that cleaves DNA is a protein. When this enzyme is glycated, its function is compromised, this is how cancer is created.

2. Insulin and IGF-1 stimulate cell division. Carbohydrate stimulates insulin and insulin stimulates IGF-1. Therefore carbohydrate stimulates cell division through that chain of event. This is how cancer is grown.

3. The mitochondria of cancer cells is shut down. One reason is that the mechanims for apoptosis is located in the mitochondria. Cancer cells can't kill themselves. It's one of the distinguishing characteristics of cancer cells. Since the mitochondria is shut down, cancer cells can't use fatty acids nor ketones for fuel. They must use glucose for fuel. This is due to the inability of the nucleus to metabolize fuel aerobically. The process is anaerobic. It's fermentation and produces substantially smaller amount of energy. The by-product is lactic acid. The point is, when we eat carbohydrate, we feed cancer since glucose is all that it eats.

And one more way glucose makes cancer possible.

Glucose is an immuno-suppressant. It suppresses the immune system thereby allowing cancer cells to proliferate uncontrolled.


Why do you say glucose is the main source of fuel for the body? Is it because it's used up first, then fatty acids, then maybe ketones if there's a need? If it's a question of priority, consider alcohol, it is used before glucose yet we don't consider it the primary source of fuel. Glucose is not the main source of fuel for the body. Unless, of course, that's the main source of fuel you eat. It's not what I provide to my body. I give it only fat meat and water. Go over the math again and see if the idea still holds to scrutiny.

Glucose is directly inflammatory. Cut out the poison, and the symptoms disappear. However, if there was irreversible damage, that's going to stick no matter what. So if by cure you mean to repair all the damage, then no LC doesn't do that. But if by cure you mean the elimination of all symptoms of the disease, then yes LC does exactly that and does it so quickly it's unbelievable.

A low carbohydrate diet is merely the logical solution to the problem of carbohydrate poisoning. I fail to see why you fail to see this.

What about this doctor, will he do?
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/

And I say fat people don't like to run and that's why we don't see many fat runners.

The liver can't convert fatty acids to glucose. It can only convert alpha-glycerol phosphate to glucose. Glycerol is the molecule that binds three fatty acids to form one triglyceride. The amount of glycerol in triglycerides is probably at most 10% of mass. In order to metabolize 2000 calories of glucose from triglycerides, we would need to eat at least 5 kilos of fat.

I was referring to the type of muscle development one gets from strength training versus running.

It's partially true. The primary reason low carbohydrate produce weight loss is insulin. Or more specifically, lower insulin. As we eat less carbohydrate, we secrete less insulin. When insulin drops back down to normal or merely lower than it was, fat tissue releases more fat thereby reducing its mass. This is how we lose fat.

I was not saying the body can not use fatty acids as energy. I was not saying that everything first is converted to glucose, but we do need certain amounts of it.

If all glucose was inflammatory, we would see more inflammatory disease in the Asian countries that are getting the vast majority of their calories from carbohydrates. Having very high blood sugar is inflammatory, but this is not occurring in Thailand and Bangladesh. So there is something else responsible for raising our blood sugar to the point where people in the United States have an inflammatory response to carbohydrates.

A high carbohydrate diet will produce obesity regardless of nutrient content otherwise. Since obesity is merely fuel partitioning, i.e. more fuel toward fat cells and less toward every other cell, than it's logical to conclude that what causes this fuel partitioning is a high insulin resistance of every cell except fat cells which continue to accept glucose and subsequently grow in mass.

That is one theory. Another theory is that low carbohydrate diets lower blood sugar, and low blood sugar is the body's signal to use stored fat. There is a theory that the reason we have excess insulin levels is because of insulin resistance induced by inflammation. The second view has become more popular because of studies on animals altered to not have certain inflammatory processes. It turns out, these animals become incapable of developing insulin resistance. They secrete lower levels of insulin than animals with insulin resistance that have the same diet.

Someone made a comment that they were offended by my short post. I'm sorry that my posts here are becoming shorter, I am getting more and more feedback and questions from reviewers and other people who have read the book and I am trying to respond to everyone.

We already saw examples where this isn't the case. You are ignoring the counter examples so it will fit your theory.

If only the truth was a matter of opinion. Science, or the pursuit of truth, is not a debate. There are no sides. It's either the truth, or it's not. A reputable source doesn't make a claim true. One precept of science is to abandon the idea when the facts refute it. Statistics are not facts, they are merely a compilation of several facts put together to allow us to form an idea. This idea has yet to be tested, i.e. to find out if it's the truth. Several of your claims are based on statistics, i.e. not the truth but rather ideas that haven't been tested. Yet in all appearances, you make those claims with the same assurance as if they were true, i.e. that they were indeed tested and found to be the truth.

In other words, if the facts don't fit the idea, then you must abandon the idea.