That statement is by far the funniest thing I have ever read on a nutrition blog….ever

Thanks for making my day Doc.

Glad you enjoyed it.

I think there would be a difference between eating fresh pork ribs or belly and eating lard or bacon or salt pork, because of the processing and additives. Meat breaks down when cooked and stored. Salt-preserved meat promotes scurvy, according to Stefansson. Eating fresh meat free of additives seems like the best choice. It would also be best to cook it minimally, surely not well-done or browned or burnt or blackened. Plus, most of the lard I have seen in stores had BHA/BHT or other preservatives. And about 2/3 of the lard I’ve seen was had a mix of lard and partially hydrogenated lard, which is definitely not ideal. I would get leaf lard, which is a similar type of fat to kidney suet in beef. It’s about 25% more saturated than regular pork fat, 50% saturated vs 40%. So it’s similar to red palm oil.

“In contrast, insulin levels (Figure 4E) decreased significantly in participants with diabetes and in those without diabetes in all diet groups, with no significant differences among groups in the amount of decrease.”

It then states:
“Among the participants with diabetes, the decrease in HOMA-IR at 24 months (Figure 4F) was significantly greater in those assigned to the Mediterranean diet than in those assigned to the low-fat diet (2.3 and 0.3, respectively; P=0.02; P=0.04 for the interaction among diabetes and Mediterranean diet and time).”

Again, no mention of the low carb group.

“Among the participants with diabetes, the proportion of glycated hemoglobin at 24 months decreased by 0.4±1.3% in the low-fat group, 0.5±1.1% in the Mediterranean-diet group, and 0.9±0.8% in the low-carbohydrate group. The changes were significant (P<0.05) only in the low-carbohydrate group (P=0.45 for the comparison among groups).

In other words, the improvement in glycated hemoglobin, a key marker that reflects average blood sugar levels over a 2-3 months period was significant only in the low carb group whose carbohydrate intake was in the order to 3 – 4 times what is considered appropriate for diabetics. To me this is much more significant than an improvement in fasting glucose.

Taubes’s position on carbohydrate driving insulin secretion is basic chemistry. It is fact, not ‘Taubes’s theory’.

I agree with you on the glycated hemoglobin.

Unfortunately, it seems that there was as much left out of this paper as there was included.

Weight loss was comparable, though there was a slightly more pronounced benefit for women on the Mediterranean diet and this is somewhat significant since weight loss for women is generally more difficult.

Weight control (not getting heavier) was effective across the board so carbohydrates didn’t make anyone fat. The Mediterranean diet had moderate carbohydrates (equal to low-fat) and lowest saturated fat and positively affected glycemic profiles. Since weight loss was about the same, or better for low-carb, decreased body fat was not the cause otherwise low-carb would have done as well, or according to low-carb proponents better, since carbohydrate intake is supposed to be solely (or mostly) responsible for insulin response.

Taubes’ theory rests on carbohydrates that drive insulin levels that he states affects everything else. The Mediterranean Diet yielded the best insulin control and improved insulin sensitivity.

From the study we gather:

- Carbohydrates don’t make people fat so long as people follow some sort of diet plan.
- Calorie restriction for (minimal) weight loss and sustained weight control worked, at least for two years. Long term is still up for debate. The low-carb diet was not calorie restricted but for some reason had the highest dropout rate (25%) which implies that calorie restriction isn’t necessarily the reason people fail to adhere to diet plans.
- It was demonstrated that best insulin control was with a diet including moderate carbohydrates and mindful of saturated fats.

It’s interesting you mention the rest, cause I had wondered about that element. I wasn’t sure if the lack of carbs might mean the body needs more time to recover since fat isn’t as an efficient energy source as carbs and it might need for recooperation time.

Thanks again for the feedback. And thanks as always for your hard work, your blog is one of the few I checked eagerly everyday in hope of an update

Fatty portions, including the viscera and adipose tissue, were the most desirable portions and were reserved for the chiefs and others first in line for the meat. The lean muscle meat was the poorest and least appealing part of the animal. If possible, the lean meat was commonly fed to animals or thrown away (according to Stefansson, Samuel Hearne, Cabeza de Vaca, Weston Price, who documented aboriginal diets).

In the early springtime, when animals tended to be leaner, there were well-known problems with eating too much protein, and the fatty parts of the animals were even more precious. In these times, hunting was discouraged except in emergencies. Just eating lean meat leads to symptoms including severe fatigue, malaise, susceptibility to infection, etc. Australian Aborigines are known to discard a kangaroo carcass if the animal does not have sufficient fat to make it worth slaughtering.

I aim for 70% of calories from fat, 25% from protein, 5% from carbs. So far, I’ve lost 35 lbs, and my cholesterol numbers are as good as they’ve ever been.

I have a questions that isn’t realated to this post but I can’t find a place to mail you directly so here goes.

What are your thoughts on Kefir? I’ve been reading a lot about it and it looks like it’s pretty good stuff.

I feel about Kefir the same as I do about yogurt. It’s okay as long as it’s the plain stuff and not sweetened with a bunch of HFCS. it has some good probiotic value for the gut ad some folic acid. But I don’t eat it myself because I’m not a big fan of fermented dairy products. I would rather eat the cow (or sheep) it comes from.

I do have a question that’s been bugging me for sometime, and maybe if you don’t know you could point me in the right direction to start pulling studies.

I’ve been on a low carb diet for the past 3 years, with the occasional cheat for holidays/event(average of 1 day every 5-6 weeks). I keep my carbs quite low, sub 35grams a day.

I’m also an avid weightlifter, 4x a week. The thing that has gotten me as that after giving up carbs, my strength has gone up quite a bit, bench press/deadlift/squats have all reached new numbers I never reached back when I did a regular low fat/high protein/mod carb bodybuilding diet. I’ve never been able to figure out why that is as it seems to go against the whole carbs for quick bursts of energy/bodybuilding dogma, unless my body has become just that more adept at burning fat for fuel over this time? Any thoughts?

And also, from the standpoint of lifting weights, with the lack of carbs in my diet, am I short changing myself as far as building new muscle? I always read about how important insulin as an anabolic signal to increase muscle repair/growth. I have noticed that while the lbage I lift is going up, I wouldn’t say my muscle size is that much bigger than before. Protein intake is good (200+grams daily). I’m 5′8 170lb, 11% bf.

Thanks for any advice you can give or point me to. I love how I feel on this diet and it’s put me in the best health I’ve ever been.

You are probably one of the lucky ones who carb adapt easily and quickly. Plus with the amount of protein you are eating you have plenty of substrate to convert to glucose if you need it.

You are building muscle because you’re a) getting plenty of good quality protein, which is what muscle is made of, and b) you are getting plenty of l-leucine, the branched-chain amino acid that is sort of the trigger for muscle growth. If you are getting stronger, you are building muscle. You probably don’t notice the size difference yet because you are replacing intramuscular fat with muscle. I suspect that if you keep at it, you’ll begin to see a difference in size. Plus, I’m not sure that hard resistance workouts four times per week is the best strategy to build muscle. The workouts tear muscle down – the rest periods rebuild them. Maybe spend a few days between workouts and see what happens.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/08/03/business/03metrics.graphix.ready.html

JohnW

Thanks, John. I saw this in the paper yesterday and plan to post on it soon.

[Apologies for the semi-blatant non sequitur.]

No, I can’t think of a reason. Others out there have any ideas?