One reason we consume so many refined carbohydrates today is because they have been added to processed foods in place of fats — which have been the main target of calorie reduction efforts since the 1970s. Fat has about twice the calories of carbohydrates, but low-fat diets are the least effective of comparable interventions, according to several analyses, including one presented at a meeting of the American Heart Association this year. A recent study by one of us, Dr. Ludwig, and his colleagues published in JAMA examined 21 overweight and obese young adults after they had lost 10 to 15 percent of their body weight, on diets ranging from low fat to low carbohydrate. Despite consuming the same number of calories on each diet, subjects burned about 325 more calories per day on the low carbohydrate than on the low fat diet — amounting to the energy expended in an hour of moderately intense physical activity. . . . If this hypothesis turns out to be correct, it will have immediate implications for public health.
Actually, it’s only “new” thinking for people who’ve been paying no attention.
Sugar started becoming expensive in the 70’s so food processors went from
sugar to High Fructose Corn Syrup.
Sugar is just as bad as HFCS.
Just finished “The Big Fat Surprise”. Not much new if you have read “Good Calories Bad Calories”, but presented in a much more digestible (pun intended) style if you would rather not read something that scans somewhat like a scientific paper. No criticism of Taubes (I personally prefer GCBC) but this one will likely be more widely read, and that’s a good thing.
Also TBFS does a great job of showing just how the personal prejudices of a few powerful, prickly men made nutrition policy a disaster for 50 years, and likely killed millions with premature heart disease, strokes, diabetes, and cancer.
I personally think that one big reason why fat continues to be vilified is that people like to have others to feel superior towards, and the obese provide one of the few available targets nowadays – it is easy to feel morally superior to those fatties who can’t even control their appetite.
“Despite consuming the same number of calories…, subjects burned about 325 more calories per day on the low carbohydrate than on the low fat diet…”
Maybe that is because the people on the low carbo diet, are awake and moving more hours than those sleeping off their carbo-induced stupors.
If you want insight into the mechanisms that explain why carbohydrates is the problem, and fat is not, read “The Zone” by Barry Sears. He got it right in 1996.
Hint: it all comes down to controlling Insulin levels. Eating carbohydrates stimulates Insulin production. Eating protein stimulates Insulin’s axis-pair, Glucagon. The absolute, as well as the relative levels, of these two hormones communicates actions to the body. When Glucagon levels are higher than Insulin levels, the message is burn *stored fat* for energy. When Insulin levels are higher than Glucagon levels, the message is burn *carbohydrates* for energy and *store* whatever is left over as fat. And how does one properly manage the levels of these two controlling hormones? You guessed it, “with The Zone Diet.”
The Zone still has way too many carbs and not enough fat, especially saturated fat. It’s better than the food pyramid but in the head-to-head comparison that was done, the Atkins-style was better. And Taubes shows that focus on glycemic index alone is inappropriate. I was a Zone fan until I read Taubes, then I realized that Zone didn’t go far enough.