earliet this year a minor publication otherwise known as the New England Journal of Medicine chose to publish a study which apparently showed that regardless of mutrient content , all that mattered was calories in the fight agains flab.
The study in question discribed one of the diets as Low Carb but in facf the participants all had significantly more than 100 grams of carbs a day. Now whilst it was true that they had less carbs than the low fat group the actaully number of carbs was hurdly low. As there is no strict definition of low carb , nothing can be done in the public arena to explain why it is misleading to discribed that paritcular diet as low carb.
Yesterday I had the pleasure of reading in the journal Diabetes another study which apprently showed how low carbing made no difference wot weight out come and infact suggested that it had negative implications. Apart from the fact that the study was funded by the Sugar Board , that well known carbohydrate organisation it was also interesting to read that the low carb group were getting on average 300 grams of carbs a day.
Anypne with the most basic knowledge of human biochemistry would know that :-
To go into ketosis – (which is the unique state that allows the body to burn fat fast and brings with it many beneifts to CVD risk and Diabetes ) requires less than 60grams of carbs per day.
To control insulin , without ketosis it is usual to limit the intake of carbs to about 100 grams a day which means a diet rich in vegetables and fruit but not alot of starch.
How is it then that a journal like Diabetes can publish a report which is so misleading since most people will read the headline title and the summary and will not bother to read in detail the actual trial which happened to only cover a handful of people. Talk about being misleading.
Perhaps the most improtant thing to do now is to have a proper definiton of low carb and stop this abuse.
Just last week another comparison trial was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and again the results showed that, whilst some experts would love to prove that low starch / high protein is less effective than the standard high starch/ low fat approach, the LSHP diet did better overall.
In particular the LSHP participants were able to maintain lower blood pressure after the weight loss period had ended and found it easier to stick to this form of dieting. It is really easy to follow a LSHP diet because you really dont need to count at all. As usual the HSLF group found it harder to follow and the added health benefits of low blood pressure did not last after the strick dieting ended.
What this trial did not test was inch loss and cholesterol profile and when these have been tested in the past , it is usual to find that the LS/HP group achieves a better cholesterol profile as well as improved inch loss.
How many more clinical studies is it going to take to get someone somewhere to tell the British Public that is possible to lose more fat faster, more efficiently and more sustainably following a low starch high protein diet.
SACN (Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition) an advisory panel to the government announced to day that we should increase our calorific intake guidelines. The guideline for men would rise from 2500 to 2900 and the female guideline whould rise from 2000 to 2400.
So while the Department of Health is busy telling everyone to eat less the so called experts have decided that we are not eating enough.
This is laughable but what is far more interesting but disconcerting is that our experts haven’t woken up to the fact that calorific intake is really a very small part of the whole nutrition equation. Infact it is really a big distraction. Anyone who simply views food as a pile of calories and our bodies as simply a machine that burns calories clearly fails to understand human bio chemisty which does not treat all caloires equally.
No wonder the average person is so confused and why 60% of the UK population is fat.
Could someone somewhere please remind the so called experts that counting calories whether you are fat or thin is pretty much a complete waste of time and energy? We have all been calorie counting like mad for 30 years but guess what …..it hasn’t worked!
Prof Feinman spoke at the 45th EASD Annual Meeting, Vienna, Austria to raise the challanging subject of the unfortuneate link between insulin and starch. It is not often that mere mortals like me get the chance to listen to this man so I thought I would share this link with anyone reading this Blog.
1 go to http://easd.conference2web.com/content
2 go to page 10
3 look down the list of speakers until you find Prof Feinman
4 Click on the link and listen to his talk.
I know it is a bit of a hassle but there is no other way to get there. Anyone interested in getting thin or worried about diabetes should listen to this Prof in Biochemistry. Find out why eating lots of starch is just not great for you and why the problem is not in the fats we eat but in the starch and the sugar we consume.
Over the past 7 years since I took an interest in low starch / high protein diets there have times when it appeared that no one seemed remotely interested in solving the obesity crises other than by repeating the same inadaquate message of Eat Less – Do More. All that has happened, over the past six years ,while we are getting fatter, is that the tone of audio level of that message has changed from a normal voice to a loud shout. This will remind us all of the classic comedy sketch when the British visitor overseas, speaks to the local in English and when they dont “get it” starts to repeat it again and again but starts to shout or repeat it loudly slowly.
The tourist unable to speak french or spanish will never improve his communication with the locals until he starts to accept that the language is simply not appropriate for them. Shouting Eat less fat and do more to people that have an insulin problem need to understand that it will never work.
Having despaired at times over the lack of interest in low starch high proteing I am pleased to see two more scientific studies published in October which point the finger of blame at high starch / low fat. One is a meta analysis of epidemiological studies throughout Europe which concludes that there is no evidence of a link between low fat and weight loss. The second is a study on the comparative benefits of reducing fat or carbs in a diet. No surprises on the outcome. Whilst weight loss was comparitively similiar lipid profile ( ie cholesterol profile) of the low starch group was better. This is a consistent message in all the comparitive studies but for some reason people find it hard to understand that the real culprit in the obesity and CVD world is insulin and insulin resistence and that the key to solving this issue is the way we eat carbs and not fats.
Two steps forward.