The crusade against carbs

Low carb diets vary greatly and this creates issues with interpreting and slapping these studies together into a single argument for or against high or low carb consumption. Most studies I've read indicating the negative health consequences of LC diets look at LC high protein diets, and more specifically high animal protein diets. Those that do deal with LCHF show mixed results. Nutritional studies are characteristically plagued by a minefield of confounding variables and very difficult to interpret.

What is currently undisputed is that lowering one’s body weight is correlated to lowered risk of death, this holds true even within 'normal' BMI ranges. Low carb diets can help some people achieve this successfully and this is where I see the value.

I do feel that low carbers, myself included, tend to turn a blind eye to the potential dangers of excessive animal protein and fats; especially processed and 'factory raised' meats. I plan to cut back a little on meat this year accordingly, though I'm having difficulty getting my wife to buy anything but the cheaper meats and eggs!
 
Last edited:
Is it possible to fit alcohol of any kind into an LCHF diet?

It's not encouraged, but it's definitely possible.

I drink about 1 unit of alcohol every day and don't struggle at all. Mostly dry wines, with some light beer here and there.
 
Sometimes I wonder if moderation and proper exercise is not the best way to go. And stay away from any processed food.
 
Sample size of one but my wife insisted that I consult with a doctor before radically changing my diet, doc told me I was going to die if I induced and maintained a constant state of ketosis by limiting carb intake.

He did tests, stored my numbers.

Eight months later: same tests, numbers have improved and yes, that includes cholesterol. I am measurably healthier today than I was eight months ago when I started on a ketogenic diet.

I am also 16kg lighter.

Spoke to doc about it and asked if he still thinks I am going to die and as a man of science his reply was that the numbers speak for themselves.

I asked if he thinks I should continue, same response: "The numbers have improved."

He went on to add that he has noticed a marked change in my mood (it's one of the things doctors are trained to take note of.) He told me that he had considered a short course of SSRIs for me previously but that whole line of thought is totally irrelevant at this stage.

So there it is, some very personal information to add to the discussion, please remember that this is a sample size of one and so can only be used anecdotally. I thought that some of you might be interested though.
 
What is currently undisputed is that lowering one’s body weight is correlated to lowered risk of death
On the contrary it is quite well disputed. It's only the obese class II and class III that have higher all cause mortality than normal weight, with those in the overweight category having the lowest all cause mortality. The myth of the overweight category being higher risk was created by lumping everything above normal into a single group.
 
Thanks for the clarification. We're still waiting on the proper, conclusive studies backing your statements.

As soon as the power comes on I will show you.

Besides it's not something new it's age old tried and tested basics.

Ie Fatty meats and animal fats are bad. Why? Saturated fat thats why.

Transfats are bad.

Most people on LCHF over indulge on exactly that.

Not realising what they need is Mono and polysaturated fats.


Yes recent studies shows saturated fat has health benefits, but that does not mean all the bad health risks disappeared.

No my friend Saturated and transfats will still kill you. It will still give you cholesterol it will damage your organs it will give you a fatty liver/heart.

Just because recent studies shows one potential health benefit doesn't make the overwhelming health risks disappear.
 
I had massive success with Keto/LCHF 2 years ago; lost a ton of weight and became way healthier than how I was before. My whole look on life became healthier than before. While I am big advocate of LCHF, I do admit it is not for everyone.

I'm going back into LCHF after the last few months and came across this recent article which I found really interesting, and worth a read for anyone in this thread:

I lost weight by eating lots of bacon and cream. Here's a scientific explanation for why.
 
Last edited:
As soon as the power comes on I will show you.

Besides it's not something new it's age old tried and tested basics.

Ie Fatty meats and animal fats are bad. Why? Saturated fat thats why.

Transfats are bad.

Most people on LCHF over indulge on exactly that.

Not realising what they need is Mono and polysaturated fats.


Yes recent studies shows saturated fat has health benefits, but that does not mean all the bad health risks disappeared.

No my friend Saturated and transfats will still kill you. It will still give you cholesterol it will damage your organs it will give you a fatty liver/heart.

Just because recent studies shows one potential health benefit doesn't make the overwhelming health risks disappear.

Next you're going to tell us to limit eggs to 1 a week?

Nah, your opinion is terrible (except on transfats) and I would caution anyone reading your post.

Most people on LCHF over indulge on exactly that.

On Transfats? Do they? And you get this from where exactly?
 
Last edited:
I'll take some time to look it over, but to be honest, I don't have the expertise in the field to be drawing comprehensive conclusions either way, and I also don't see the reviews doing consistent testing on subjects who undergo proper LCHF diets, so I'm liable to dismiss any conclusion made about LCHF diets.

There doesn't seem to be much in the article that specifically talks about LCHF - it contrasts high carb diets with Atkins-type diets which are typically low carb high protein. But that's not really the point of this thread.

What I was trying to point out is that many carbs are not unhealthy and in fact appear to be very healthy. If LCHF works as a weight loss strategy for people, that's fantastic (and it's demonstrably good for weight loss) but to claim in addition that carbs are doing damage to oneself is perhaps going a step too far.
 
As soon as the power comes on I will show you.

Yeah, I'll wait for that power to come back on.

Besides it's not something new it's age old tried and tested basics.

Age old, as in the last 40 or so years, or how old exactly? And tested by whom?

Ie Fatty meats and animal fats are bad. Why? Saturated fat thats why.

I'll wait for that power to come back on before responding to this.

Transfats are bad.

Most people on LCHF over indulge on exactly that.

Don't you mean LCHP (Low Carb High Protein)? Could you perhaps be more specific here? State in a little more detail which foods "they" are eating causing them to over indulge on trans fats?

Not realising what they need is Mono and polysaturated fats.

...waiting for the power to come back on.

Yes recent studies shows saturated fat has health benefits, but that does not mean all the bad health risks disappeared.

Which "bad health risks"? Waiting for that power to come back on...

No my friend Saturated and transfats will still kill you. It will still give you cholesterol it will damage your organs it will give you a fatty liver/heart.

Agreed. That's why LCHF as espoused by Tim Noakes et al steers you away from trans fats.

Just because recent studies shows one potential health benefit doesn't make the overwhelming health risks disappear.

Actually, it shows multiple health benefits: blood sugar level control, weight control and, iirc, reduction in the small dense LDL cholesterol particles in the blood (which contributes to heart disease).

But we'll wait for the power to come back on, and have a look at these proper, conclusive studies you know of.
 
Yeah, I'll wait for that power to come back on.



Age old, as in the last 40 or so years, or how old exactly? And tested by whom?



I'll wait for that power to come back on before responding to this.





Don't you mean LCHP (Low Carb High Protein)? Could you perhaps be more specific here? State in a little more detail which foods "they" are eating causing them to over indulge on trans fats?



...waiting for the power to come back on.



Which "bad health risks"? Waiting for that power to come back on...



Agreed. That's why LCHF as espoused by Tim Noakes et al steers you away from trans fats.



Actually, it shows multiple health benefits: blood sugar level control, weight control and, iirc, reduction in the small dense LDL cholesterol particles in the blood (which contributes to heart disease).

But we'll wait for the power to come back on, and have a look at these proper, conclusive studies you know of.

You really don't want to learn do you? Replying with such confidence making NO sense what so ever.

Let me explain in detail then:

If you have high levels of cholesterol (which you probably do if you’re eating a high-fat, low-carb diet, then you need to be worried if your HS-CRP levels (a primary marker of inflammation) are above 1.0 mg/dL – even if you’re a hard charging athlete. I like to see most people under 0.5 for CRP levels, and here’s why: a high amount of inflammation in your body is going to make the cholesterol circulating in your bloodstream more likely to become oxidized, generating a high amount of heart and connective tissue-damaging free radicals. As a matter of fact, it’s more dangerous to have high levels of cholesterol and high levels of CRP than low levels of cholesterol and high levels of CRP – even if your high levels of cholesterol are “healthy”, big fluffy LDL particles, and not small, dense vLDL particles.

Free-ranging glucose molecules in your bloodstream can adhere to cholesterol particles and cause those particles to remain in the bloodstream for long periods of time, since your liver can’t properly process cholesterol when it has a glucose molecule attached to it. The longer cholesterol circulates in your bloodstream, the higher the likelihood that it will dig its way into an endothelial wall and potentially contribute to atherosclerosis or plaque formation. This is why it’s so dangerous to eat a high-fat diet, but to also have your nightly dark chocolate bar, overdo it on the red wine, or have weekly “cheat days” with pizza, pasta, or sugar-laden ice cream. If you’re going to eat a high fat diet, then you need to ensure your fasted blood glucose levels are staying at around 70-90mg/dL, and your hemoglobin A1C (a 3 month “snapshot” of your glucose) is staying below 5.5. If not, your high fat diet could actually be significantly hurting you.

Carbohydrates are necessary for the conversion of inactive thyroid hormone to active thyroid hormone, and if you’re on an extremely strict low carbohydrate diet, then you may actually be limiting this conversion. Your TSH is what tells your thyroid gland to “release more hormone,” so your TSH rises when your thyroid gland is underactive, or conversion of inactive to active thyroid hormone is inadequate. A high TSH means that the pituitary gland is releasing its hormone to try to get the thyroid to respond and produce more thyroid hormone. Because of inadequate carbohydrates, TSH will often elevate in a high-fat, low-carber – indicating potential for long-term thyroid and metabolic damage. If I see a TSH above 2.0 or a trend towards higher values in someone who is testing repeatedly, I get worried – and prefer to see TSH at 0.5-2.0. Of course, this doesn’t mean that you begin to shove carbohydrates indiscriminately down the hatch. However, it means that your high-fat, low-carb diet should include thyroid supporting foods rich in iodine and selenium, such as sea vegetables and brazil nuts, and should also include carbohydrates timed properly, such as before, during or after workouts, when the carbohydrate is more likely to be utilized for energy and less likely to spike blood glucose levels.

Lets no go onto you and Mr Noakes, now see everyone on this forum knows I fcking hate that guy NOAKES = DEVIL, I don't like him. Now he is a guy who makes huge statements without backing it up.

Noakes also argued that the conventional wisdom associating high fat consumption with heart disease was “unsubstantiated dogma”. (He has subsequently declared that carbohydrates are also responsible for all cancers. “Cancer is a carb-dependent disease”, he stated on Twitter.)
Noakes’ statements in relation to heart disease were bought to the attention of South African-trained Dr Jacques Rossouw, who works in the Cardiovascular Science division of the American National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI).
At the end of 2012, on a family visit to Cape Town, Rossouw was invited to take part in a debate with Noakes at UCT – on the topic of cholesterol as a risk factor for heart disease, and current dietary recommendations.
The debate didn’t go well for Noakes. Facing an audience made up largely of academics and health professionals, his theories were aggressively dismissed. Noakes later called it a “kangaroo court”, and reportedly suggested Rossouw had been flown out “by the Heart Foundation ‘and other bodies’ to silence him”.
While much of Rossouw’s presentation (which is available for download from UCT’s health faculty website) revolved around complicated technical discussions on cholesterol and coronary heart disease (CHD), the correlations Rossouw drew between diet, obesity and chronic ill-health painted a slightly different picture to that posited by Noakes.
Rossouw’s data clearly indicated that, “reduced intakes of total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol, and increases in unsaturated fats were associated with reductions in serum cholesterol and [reduced] risk of CHD”. In other words: eating less fat had a positive effect on heart health.
Rossouw’s data showed something else: in certain populations where low-fat, high-carb diets were introduced, this had little to no effect on overall obesity. In countries like the US, Rossouw noted low-fat, high-carbohydrate eating practices had long preceded the current obesity epidemic – by several decades – indicating “other factors were primarily responsible”.
Importantly, even as obesity kept rising, CHD rates continued to decline where populations had reduced intake of dietary fat.
Rossouw went even further and suggested that, no matter what combination of fat versus carb we ate, obesity rates in developed countries would continue to rise. Changing dietary guidelines in Sweden provided proof. For around 30 years (from the 1970s onward), Sweden recommended and practised a low-fat “modified Mediterranean diet” to address high rates of cardiovascular disease. In the early 2000s, Sweden suddenly switched to a high-fat, low-carb eating model. Under both regimens, obesity increased.
Something else happened, too. As fat intake increased so did Sweden’s serum cholesterol levels. “Swedish researchers do not yet know if this change reversed the previously declining CHD rates,” Rossouw told Men’s Health. “It will be interesting to watch this natural experiment. I would predict their CHD rates will start increasing.”

Noakes has since developed diabetes.
 
Yeah, I'll wait for that power to come back on.



Age old, as in the last 40 or so years, or how old exactly? And tested by whom?



I'll wait for that power to come back on before responding to this.





Don't you mean LCHP (Low Carb High Protein)? Could you perhaps be more specific here? State in a little more detail which foods "they" are eating causing them to over indulge on trans fats?



...waiting for the power to come back on.



Which "bad health risks"? Waiting for that power to come back on...



Agreed. That's why LCHF as espoused by Tim Noakes et al steers you away from trans fats.



Actually, it shows multiple health benefits: blood sugar level control, weight control and, iirc, reduction in the small dense LDL cholesterol particles in the blood (which contributes to heart disease).

But we'll wait for the power to come back on, and have a look at these proper, conclusive studies you know of.

Then sodan just to aggravate you some more, Dr. Andrew Weil’s article in the Huffington Post has led his readers to believe that saturated fats in the diet, which are primarily from meats and dairy products, are better for them to eat than carbohydrates, which are from plant foods. He bases this on a March 2010 analysis that was “published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (that) found that ‘saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk’ of coronary heart disease, stroke or coronary vascular disease.” In his opinion this piece of research is a significant exoneration of the dietary saturated fat theory for the cause of heart disease. He failed to mention that the National Dairy Council funded this study.

Furthermore, the formulation of Dr. Weil’s revolutionary opinion on the wisdom of eating a diet high in animal foods appears to have been uninfluenced by an accompanying editorial written by the legendary authority on diet and heart disease, Jeremiah Stamler, MD. Dr. Stamler debunked this dairy-industry funded study based on its flawed methodology, and a disregard of 50 years of diet-heart research with contrary findings, and dozens of metabolic (ward-type-feeding) experiments showing that eating saturated fat and/or cholesterol causes an adverse effect on blood lipids. In addition, thousands of relevant animal studies on the damaging effects of saturated fat and cholesterol were ignored.

In this Huffington Post article, Dr. Weil claims carbohydrates are the real culprits, and he bases this in part on an April 2010 article from the Journal of the American Medical Association. This population study found that increasing added dietary sugars from less than 5% to more than 25% of the calories (a five-fold or more change) caused a small increase in triglycerides (by 9 points, from 105 mg/dL to 114 mg/dL), with a similar small reduction in good cholesterol (HDL-C) (11 points, from 58.7 to 47.7 mg/dL). Most important to notice is the large amounts of “unhealthy” carbohydrates (table sugar) that must be consumed for even small changes in blood lipids to be noticed.

In highly-controlled experiments, in order to show a rise in triglycerides, the experimental design has to be based on feeding the subjects large amounts of refined sugars and flours, and/or the subjects in the experiments are required to eat more food than they can comfortably consume; in other words, they are forced to overeat. Confirmation of the healthfulness of carbohydrates is seen when people are fed starches, such as whole grains, beans, and potatoes, and green and yellow vegetables, rather than overfed sugars and flours; their triglyceride levels do not increase.

Dr. Weil’s position runs contrary to several irrefutable observations that you can make for yourself. Starches have fueled the engines of human civilizations for at least the past 14,000 years. Carbohydrates (starches), such as rice in Asia, corn in Central America, potatoes in South America, and barley and wheat in Europe, have provided the bulk of the calories for almost all human diets. Only a few small primitive populations, living at the extremes of the environment, such as the Inuit (Eskimos), have been fueled by saturated fats. Just as undeniable, worldwide today, populations of people who consume the greatest amounts of carbohydrate are the trimmest and fittest, and also have the lowest incidence of heart disease and diabetes. This truth is confirmed by observing the change that occurs when people from Japan, for example, migrate to the United States or Europe. As they eat less rice (carbohydrate) and more saturated fat (meat and dairy products) they become fatter and sicker.

Pointing the guilty finger away from fat and towards carbohydrates is self-serving for those diet-experts who themselves refuse to give up their high-fat diet. Food industries buy scientific research published in respectable journals because it is one of their most effective marketing tools. The end result of this mixing up of the truth could be that billions of people will be deprived of a real opportunity to live long, disease-free lives.
 
Yeah, I'll wait for that power to come back on.



Age old, as in the last 40 or so years, or how old exactly? And tested by whom?



I'll wait for that power to come back on before responding to this.





Don't you mean LCHP (Low Carb High Protein)? Could you perhaps be more specific here? State in a little more detail which foods "they" are eating causing them to over indulge on trans fats?



...waiting for the power to come back on.



Which "bad health risks"? Waiting for that power to come back on...



Agreed. That's why LCHF as espoused by Tim Noakes et al steers you away from trans fats.



Actually, it shows multiple health benefits: blood sugar level control, weight control and, iirc, reduction in the small dense LDL cholesterol particles in the blood (which contributes to heart disease).

But we'll wait for the power to come back on, and have a look at these proper, conclusive studies you know of.

References:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com
http://www.benpakulski.com
http://www.mh.co.za/
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/suga...cose-2090.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
http://physrev.physiology.org/conten.../1/23.full.pdf
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/48/2/240.abstract
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/9/1/89

Most of the research presented comes from:
University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
University of California
Lyle McDonald
 
I agree 100% - Tim Noakes is a right twat, hopefully one day he'll be tried for genocide. I'm not going to pull up 50 articles to substantiate my opinion, I just think he's a twat and as for folks that follow his reckless advice, well natural selection will take care of them.

I couldn't agree more with what Replay said earlier:

Sometimes I wonder if moderation and proper exercise is not the best way to go. And stay away from any processed food.

Is this concept too difficult to understand or do fat, lazy people just want to sit in front of the Telly and gorge on fat all day? Rhetorical question. It actually pisses me off how naive people can be when it comes to 'magic diets'.

Get off your fat ass and get some exercise, don't feed pretzels and doughnuts to your fat face all the time and stop reading fairy tales written by one idiot that has been proven to be wrong.
 
I don't think it's so much that people think carbs are unhealthy, I think it's more of an issue that it's far easier to over eat on a high carb diet than on a low carb one.

To grossly oversimplify, eating carbs you're more likely to get hunger pangs due to all the insulin which you won't get if you don't eat carbs, in addition to fat being more satiating versus carbs,

If you can eat carbs, protein and fat all in moderation then that's fine, but for many people eating carbs makes them want to eat more, and it's a vicious cycle.

Just my 2c :)
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X