Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:26:07 -0400, Roger Zoul
wrote:

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Tue, 18 May 2004 14:42:23 -0400, jmk wrote:
::
::: On 5/18/2004 2:24 PM, Bob in CT wrote:
:::
:::: The problem with studies like this is that there are so many
:::: variables. Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did, as
:::: I think low carb is the way to go and low fat is a lie.
:::
::: Bob, could you please explain this? Why do you think that low fat
::: is "a lie?" What do you mean by that? It certainly seems to work
::: for some.
:::
::
:: I think it does work for some. The problem is that I thought I was
:: one of those people. I ate low fat for many years. I developed
:: insulin resistance. Was that genetic predisposition or the low fat
:: diet? I don't know, but I wouldn't hesitate to say the latter or at
:: least a combination of the two. Moreover, I could eat pasta or
:: brown rice and be hungry with an hour or even a half-hour of eating.
:: Even if one believes that saturated fat is bad (which I no longer
:: do), "low fat" has to include fat such as olive oil and nuts. These
:: things sate me whereas true low fat products do not.
:: So, I think low fat is a lie because it appears to cause or
:: exacerbate insulin resistance and requires one to forego potentially
:: useful fats.
::

I think low-fat is a lie in the sense that it leads one to believe that
fat
is bad. In the same sense, low-carb is a lie if one comes to the
conclusion
that carbs are bad. Excess carbs are bad as is excess fat. Too much of
both is a killer combination. Excessive calorie intake seems to be the
real
problem.

Low-fat is not a lie in the sense that if you reduce calories, you lose
fat.
In that same sense, low carb is not a lie.

As a type 2 diabetic, I was able to lose fat on a low-fat diet. I ate a
lot
because I had appetitie. However, I also exercised like a maniac (and
hurt
myself), and as result, lost weight. On low carb, I don't have that
appetite, and hence don't have to go overboard on exercise. I feel
maintenance will be easier for me on low carb. Low carb doesn't *seem* to
support the same volume of exercise for me that low fat did, but then
again,
I'm more than 10 years older now while doing low carb.





I think if you can exercise enough, then low fat might not be bad. I used
to walk many miles per day while in college, bike 3-4 days a week, lift
weights, play raquetball, etc. Now, I exercise more in terms of volume (I
bike a lot more miles now, for instance) for individual exercises, but my
overall activity level in college was much higher. For instance, I walked
a ton in college but never walk now. The problem comes in when you get
hurt, as I did in an African dance class (while biking and taking tennis
lessons). My ankle injury basically stopped all exercising. So, you're
eating a ton of carbs that have no where to go other than to increase your
insulin resistance. If you're Lance Armstrong, you can eat a low fat
diet; if you're suddenly an engineer with a desk job and an injury that
prevents you from exercising, you can't.

I think the problem is that low fat is perceived to be "right." Fat is
bad, regardless of the type of fat. That's total BS and the government
deserves to be sued for forcing the "food pyramid" on us without a shred
of evidence supporting it.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply