Easier Dieting
Help for the struggling...
Help for the struggling...
So have I! The studies I've come across which come to negative conclusions about Low Carb diets weren't actually looking at Low Carb or weren't conducted properly: they mostly included a somewhat lower carb (but still high carb) diet, or were effectively a type of calorie-restricted diet.
I suspect dieticians and doctors have only seen such studies when they make comments about there being no good evidence for Low Carb being either effective or safe. (There is actually plenty of good evidence, as we shall see.) It is also evident from some of the negative comments that dieticians and doctors make about Low Carb that they aren't acquainted with either the definition of a genuine Low Carb diet, nor the basic principles behind why it works. (I gather the average European GP has had about 24 hours training in nutrition, probably none of which was about actual Low Carb.)
An example of a negative study: In August 2018 there were numerous press reports saying a 25-year US study showed that Low Carb diets can shorten life expectancy. In the study paper, the "Low Carb" group had a median (average) of energy from carbohydrate of 37%. Assuming the subjects ate 2000 calories daily, that makes 185g of carbohydrate. This is far too high even to be considered Liberal Low Carb (typically 50-100g, but usually at most 130g), so the paper was incorrect to say it had produced a result relevant to Low Carb diets. (There were also issues about the way the study was conducted, and with the statistical analysis, which imply the conclusions of the paper should not be given much credence.)
A genuine Low Carbohydrate diet consists of restricted carbohydrate, adequate protein plus mono/saturated fat and usually doesn't include calorie counting. (A Ketogenic diet is less than 20g carbohydrate per day, Moderate Low Carb is 20-50g per day and Liberal is 50-100g. Fibre passes right through the body, so isn't counted.) A Low Carb diet is also known as a Low Carb High Fat (or simply LCHF) diet.
High Fat? Is that safe?
For decades now we have been told how eating saturated fat is bad for us and causes increased blood cholesterol and heart problems or cardiovascular disease. Happily for us, that advice isn't based on good science...
That sounds far-fetched!
Nina Teicholz spent nine years doing background research and analysing the relevant US dietary research studies published since the 1950s, and found that the US dietary guidelines against saturated fat have not been supported by good science. (The US lead against saturated fat has merely been adopted by many countries, including the UK.) She published her findings in the 2014 book The Big Fat Surprise, which has received positive appraisal in more than a dozen scholarly review papers, including The Lancet. The piece in The Lancet Vol 390 August 19, 2017 titled “Fat and heart disease: challenging the dogma” says “ … readers might be incredulous at some of Teicholz’s claims and want to check the references. When many of those papers are read again from a more critical perspective, the angst and anger will rise.” i.e.: what Nina claims in her book can be verified, and realising how for decades we have been given incorrect advice about diet and saturated fat will produce anger and angst.
Not only this, but high carbohydrate consumption appears to be the real culprit for causing obesity, Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
There are a growing number of physicians who recognise that errors were made in the past about dietary advice and that, sadly, people are reaping the negative consequences health-wise. Even though numerous credible studies have either vindicated dietary saturated fat, or showed no link to heart disease, repeatedly the dietary (and treatment) guidelines have not been updated. (Also, I can hardly imagine the legal fallout if in America health officials said “We got the advice about dietary saturated fat and carbohydrate wrong. We apologise to the millions of people globally who have suffered needlessly, and to the loved ones of those who died, by following our incorrect advice.”) As already noted, the UK, among many countries, has simply adopted the US lead against dietary saturated fat and continued with it, despite the contrary evidence. (This page illustrates a fairly recent example of the guidelines not being changed despite the contrary evidence and medical professionals realising the guidelines are incorrect.)
For an authoritative account of the underlying physiology which draws on many credible research results, and also background info about Low Carb, I highly recommend the readable and practical 2011 book The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living by Jeff S. Volek PhD RD & Stephen D. Phinney MD PhD. (There is also a brief history about the incorrect anti-fat guidelines and an explanation of why some negative Low Carb studies aren't credible.) At the time the book was published, the suitably qualified authors (RD = Registered Dietician, MD = Medical Doctor) together had five decades of clinical and research experience in the field of nutrition and had published hundreds of research papers.
Why is a Low Carb diet better able to manage those pesky hormones?
Here are just three reasons:
1) Eating carbohydrate (and especially wheat) causes hormonal hunger responses for more carbohydrate. Reducing your carbohydrate intake diminishes your hunger pangs.
2) A diet which includes more fat is satisfying so the satiety hormone leptin is managed, too. Again, fewer hunger pangs.
3) Eating Carbohydrate causes an increase in blood glucose, which (in people without Type 1 Diabetes) causes a proportional release of insulin from the pancreas. The hormone insulin then either makes the glucose energy available to muscle cells or stores it as fat. Less insulin from less carbohydrate means less fat is stored and allows existing body fat to be used up. (Despite fat having a higher caloric value per gram than carbohydrate, most people tend to find that their bodies respond quite differently to calories when less insulin is being produced, and this enables easier weight-loss.)
Some people come across Low Carb because they became pre-diabetic (like myself) or have Type 2 Diabetes. However, it can still be a good weight-loss approach even if you have not been so diagnosed. (I have seen estimates that in the US, perhaps 50% of obese people over 40 have pre-diabetes, but are unaware of it.) Also, Insulin Resistance, which causes pre-diabetes and Type 2 Diabetes, makes weight-loss extremely difficult but Low Carb improves Insulin Resistance and so aids weight-loss.
What about the Environment?
People are rightly concerned about the environment, so how can we square this with red meat and dairy consumption? Done correctly, raising grass-fed cows can actually result in net carbon capture and be positive for the environment. (For example, see www.eatwild.com and look at the Environmental Benefits section.) Beef and butter (e.g. Kerrygold butter) from grass-fed animals is also tastier and more nutritious than the grain-fed alternative.
What's the catch?
You have probably realised by now that a Low Carb diet is rather counter-cultural, both socially and in medical terms. Firstly, eating out or socially is harder and more restricted, but not impossible. Secondly, much (but not all) of the medical profession seem anti-Low Carb and unaware of the science behind it, although there are exceptions and Low Carb seems to be gaining more approval as the past mistakes about fat and carbohydrate are being realised and accepted.
Also, there are few convenience foods that are Low Carb, so more cooking/food preparation is required. On the plus side, there are online resources (including recipes) and support available (e.g. online forums) which are free and make a huge difference. Low Carb requires some learning and understanding, but people who try it find there is a good chance of being successful at losing weight and improving their health.
For practical tips for following a Low Carb or Ketogenic diet, please proceed to the Practical Steps page.