I recommended recently to Tom Naughton of Fat Head fame that instead of calling them simple and complex carbs (since everyone gets those all mixed up) we should start calling them: sugar carbs, fruit carbs, and veg carbs -- as in: "avoid sugar carbs and fruit carbs, go easy on the veg carbs." Much clearer, and more people might understand... if they want to! {sigh}

Just writing to say I enjoyed this article and your website. Keep up the good work.

[...] The lipid hypothesis has failed and the myth of complex carbs. [...]

I will agree with some of the earlier posts here that there is a difference between low calorie and low carb diets.

As I have done both, please allow me to recount some of my own experiences. First, many years ago, I believed in the low fat, low-cal diet. This was back in the days when Susan Powter was starting the insanity with her oversimplified take on "you are what you eat." For those of you who don't remember, her whole thing was basically "Don't eat fat, don't get fat." It sounded plausible, back in those days, but from an actual scientific standpoint, it is complete and utter hogwash. Your body does not turn ingested fat into stored fat. Ever. Just can't happen.

Anyway, I ate low fat, and limited my caloric intake. And, yes, I lost weight, but, much of the weight I lost was muscle mass. I went from wearing an extra-large shirt to a medium, and not just because of my gut. There is no way now that my shoulders would fit into a medium, or even a large shirt, for that matter. And, there was no way that diet was sustainable. I was hungry all the time, I was quite noticeably weaker, and I was cold. Always. Sorry, ladies, but I felt like I had turned into a little girl. Not a bad thing if you really are a little girl, but a horrible thing if you are used to being a fairly big guy. 🙂

So, of course, eventually I gave up, and gained the weight back. Along with the muscle, the strength, the lack of hunger, and the warmth. I was once again comfortable, even if my gut was a bit larger than I would have liked. And I said to myself "Screw it, this is where my body wants to be." So I gave my medium shirts to a little guy I knew, and decided to be happy.

Then, eventually, I did some reading, and I discovered the low-carb thing. And then I did some more reading, and learned how and why the body really makes fat. This was the key for me. I then started eating low carb, and discovered that calories and dietary fat were really not the issue. I ate as much as I wanted, lost the fat, but retained the muscle and the strength. And the warmth. And, of course, I never felt like I was starving, because if I was hungry, I ate. The low carb diet is not really a "diet" as in "I am on a diet." It is a satisfying and sustainable way of life.

I discovered I could pork out on fats and protein, and still lose weight. And, by the way, for those of you who say "Yeah, but..." I am much healthier than I was in the old days. No pills or prescriptions for this old man. I can't actually remember the last time I even had a cold, much less anything more serious. The last time I was physically ill was about ten years ago, but that was from too much alcohol. 🙂

These days, as I said, I am older, and I can't eat as much as I used to, but if I could, I could, know what I mean? And I have kept the weight off. Easily. Don't eat carbs, and you will not crave them. Feel hungry? Go grab a chicken leg out of the fridge. Heck, go grab half a chicken. Or a big, juicy steak. And a big glass of whole milk. Don't worry if it is almost bedtime, even if you pork out on protein and fat and go right to bed, you will not gain weight. (What causes you to gain weight in such cases is the serum glucose you don't burn. Protein and fat don't cause an excess.)

I know a lot of people out there really want to hang onto the idea that calories and dietary fat are the true culprits for overweight. Heck, I was one of them. I really didn't want to be wrong in what I had believed for years, either. But I was, and now I am glad I learned this. If I had not, I would still be fat, and I would probably be experiencing a lot of other troubles that go with this, like joint pain. Forget the cardiovascular stuff; even if you never have that problem, just the sheer weight will wear out your other parts.

Many people say "If you burn less calories than you consume, you get fat." While this sounds logical, and can indeed be true, it is as big an oversimplification as Susan Powter's schtick. It depends on where you get the calories. Most people will agree there are nutritious calories and empty calories. Think of it this way: what I am saying is just one tiny step beyond this concept.

If you are not convinced, read the studies, and keep an open mind. JS provides links in many of his articles. Or, just try it. What do you have to lose, but the weight? If you are obese, you are already unhealthy. Give it a shot.

Ultra-low-carb supporters love to cite the study you mention, and other mostly out-of-date, one-year-long-or-shorter studies. I do agree that if you want to have the best chance of losing the most weight possible over a period of several months, and don't care about long-term results, the Atkins diet seems like a pretty good choice. I tried it, and lost a bunch of weight in just three weeks. Sadly, I, like the vast majority of people who try Atkins, fell off it and gained the weight back. In fact, in the study you cite, the weight-loss gap between the Atkins diet and the other diets was quickly closing in the latter months of the study. There haven't been many long-term studies of the Atkins diet vs. other diets. One of the very few very-long-term studies done seems to suggest that meat-eating Atkinites have an alarming habit of dying early, as written up, for example, here:

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-fitness/heart/articles/2010/09/10/the-best-low-carbohydrate-diet-one-thats-plant-based

The next-longest-term study suggests that when we extend the time period to two years, Atkins loses all its advantages, with other diets fully catching up, as for example written up here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/health/research/10diet.html

Since Atkins seems to start out strong and then peter out, one might infer that Atkins is actually weaker than other diets over the very long term. But as scientists like to point out (or should), further study is needed.

What really interests me, though, about the way you folks cite these weak studies, is that you ignore the fact that even these studies that you yourselves cite clearly indicate that there are serious problems with the theory on which you base all your claims. Your basic claim is that if you eat carbs, you turn into a walking insulin-spurting, fat-accumulating machine of uncontrollable appetite, whereas if you cut out carbs, your body very neatly and comfortably turns your calories into energy and muscle, burning away fat. But when we look at this study that you cite and other studies, do we see people on higher-carb diets piling on flab, while the Atkins folks become all sleek and fit? Hardly. What we see, over the relatively short-term, is that the Atkins folks lose a modest amount of weight, and the non-Atkins, carb-eating folks lose a modest amount of weight, too, if somewhat less, and as time goes on the gap narrows. I know how you folks try to explain away this massive, sharp contradiction with what your theory predicts: You claim that people on other diets are actually reducing their carbs, too. Please. The fact is, the theory just doesn't even come close to holding up in these studies, even if it offers a short-term advantage in rate of weight loss.

But where Atkins really fails is in the real world. If you step outside the world of Atkinites and start randomly asking overweight people what their experiences have been with the Atkins diet, you pretty much always hear the same thing: Tried it, lost weight, fell off it, gained the weight back. Of course, if most of your information comes from sites like this one, you'll hear nothing but good things about ultra-low-carb approaches, and will be oblivious to the serious shortcomings of the diet's claims.

Too bad it doesn't work for most people. It's a very seductive idea. And it seems to work long-term for some tiny minority of people--as do many other kinds of extreme diets backed by wonderful-sounding theories. I'm happy for everyone who achieves a healthy weight over the long term, however they do it. I really wish, though, that the Atkinites and other proponents of extreme diets weren't distracting the public from what really works in weight loss for most people.

Excellent discussion here. On episode 7 of Latest in Paleo, I played the following clip by Dr. Marc Bessler. He is an obesity expert at New York Presbytarian hospital: http://bigthink.com/ideas/16494. For many people, fat is more satiating -- especially vs. carbs -- this is key.

The tide is swinging on the low-fat fad diet, with nutritionists, doctors, and researchers finding that natural saturated fats are an important part of a good diet.

One of the reasons I have been a fan of David Freedman's work is that it shines a light on some of the reasons why the research on both sides can be, and often is: WRONG. Much of the research from Ansel Keys on forward has been dishonest, corporate- and agenda-driven, and dubious.

That being the case, what's left? How about the evolutionary clues? What did our ancestors eat? Heck, even our great grandmothers wouldn't recognize half the packaged crap in a grocery store as food...

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain